Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central

454 ITR 595Supreme Court of India2023#4058 most cited

What is Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central authority for?

Fixed deposit receipts seized during a search are merely documents evidencing debt and do not constitute 'other valuable articles' that can be brought to tax as unexplained money or valuable articles.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax · 454 ITR 595 · SC · section 69A · section 132(4) · unexplained money · valuable article · fixed deposit receipts · seized during search · debt due to assessee · inherent market value

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 69CSection 131(1A)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorrule of consistencyunexplained moneysection 148asection 69asection 115bbsection 115bsection 69section 115bbeundisclosed incomesection 132(4)genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sivasubramanian, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and all the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1243/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Bleshri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1208/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.35/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1208/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019. The Assistant Commissioner P. Selvaraj, Of Income Tax, Vs. 5/68,Kurumbapatty, Central Circle 2, Pavithram Po Trichy Karur 639 002. Pan: Boips 1370G Respondent/Cross Objector Appellant आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.36/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1212/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019. The Assistant Commissioner K.N. Prabhu, Of Income Tax, Vs. 23, Bharathi Nagar, Central Circle 2, Karur 639 002 Trichy Pan: Aczpp 6832G Appellant Respondent/Cross Objector

Section 132Section 153C

…and hence, we uphold the same. 17. The next ground of invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO. However, the Ld.AR relied on the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.N.Singh [2023 (5) TMI 746; 454 ITR 595]. We find force in the submission of the Ld.AR that the amount of deposit made by the partner into the firm would not fall under the provisions of section 69A of the Act and therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in holding that the addition made u/s.69A of the Act is invalid. 18. Thus, all the grounds raised by the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. K.N.Prabhu, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and all the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1212/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Bleshri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1208/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.35/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1208/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019. The Assistant Commissioner P. Selvaraj, Of Income Tax, Vs. 5/68,Kurumbapatty, Central Circle 2, Pavithram Po Trichy Karur 639 002. Pan: Boips 1370G Respondent/Cross Objector Appellant आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.36/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1212/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019. The Assistant Commissioner K.N. Prabhu, Of Income Tax, Vs. 23, Bharathi Nagar, Central Circle 2, Karur 639 002 Trichy Pan: Aczpp 6832G Appellant Respondent/Cross Objector

Section 132Section 153C

…and hence, we uphold the same. 17. The next ground of invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO. However, the Ld.AR relied on the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.N.Singh [2023 (5) TMI 746; 454 ITR 595]. We find force in the submission of the Ld.AR that the amount of deposit made by the partner into the firm would not fall under the provisions of section 69A of the Act and therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in holding that the addition made u/s.69A of the Act is invalid. 18. Thus, all the grounds raised by the…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Art Deco Mumbai Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A

ITA 4758/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

…r valuable articles, in such a situation, invoking the provisions of section 69A was not justified. ART DECO Mumbai Private Limited; A.Ys. 15-16, 16-17 5.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. N. Singh vs. CIT [2023] 150 taxmann.com 301/293 Taxman 550/ 454 ITR 595 has an occasion to deal with the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Hon’ble SC held that section 69 and section 69A, apart from being close neighbours, have resemblance with one another. Section 69 deals with unexplained investment and section 69A deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. I…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Art Deco Mumbai Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A

ITA 4757/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

…r valuable articles, in such a situation, invoking the provisions of section 69A was not justified. ART DECO Mumbai Private Limited; A.Ys. 15-16, 16-17 5.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. N. Singh vs. CIT [2023] 150 taxmann.com 301/293 Taxman 550/ 454 ITR 595 has an occasion to deal with the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Hon’ble SC held that section 69 and section 69A, apart from being close neighbours, have resemblance with one another. Section 69 deals with unexplained investment and section 69A deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. I…

Anil Dhakad, Indore vs. Aasst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Indore

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 454/IND/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…7 ITR 568 (Guj.) iii. DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi (ITAT, Delhi)-ITA No.1344/Del/2021 order dt. 27.10.2023 iv. Jayashri Shrikant Deshmukh vs. ACIT (ITAT, Pune) ITANo.776/Pun/2022 v.Ram Kishan vs. ITO in ITANo.1909/Del/2020 (ITAT, Delhi) vi. D.N. Singh vs. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) vii. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. ltd. 155 ITR 711 (SC) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69/69A are applicable on cumulative satisfaction of the condition prescribed therein and once the assessee has explained the nature and source of the income or assets then provisions of section 69A are not appl…

Anil Dhakad, Indore vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Indore

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 453/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…7 ITR 568 (Guj.) iii. DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi (ITAT, Delhi)-ITA No.1344/Del/2021 order dt. 27.10.2023 iv. Jayashri Shrikant Deshmukh vs. ACIT (ITAT, Pune) ITANo.776/Pun/2022 v.Ram Kishan vs. ITO in ITANo.1909/Del/2020 (ITAT, Delhi) vi. D.N. Singh vs. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) vii. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. ltd. 155 ITR 711 (SC) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69/69A are applicable on cumulative satisfaction of the condition prescribed therein and once the assessee has explained the nature and source of the income or assets then provisions of section 69A are not appl…

Anil Dhakad, Indore vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Location

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 452/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…7 ITR 568 (Guj.) iii. DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi (ITAT, Delhi)-ITA No.1344/Del/2021 order dt. 27.10.2023 iv. Jayashri Shrikant Deshmukh vs. ACIT (ITAT, Pune) ITANo.776/Pun/2022 v.Ram Kishan vs. ITO in ITANo.1909/Del/2020 (ITAT, Delhi) vi. D.N. Singh vs. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) vii. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. ltd. 155 ITR 711 (SC) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69/69A are applicable on cumulative satisfaction of the condition prescribed therein and once the assessee has explained the nature and source of the income or assets then provisions of section 69A are not appl…

Anil Dhakad, Indore vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Indore

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 451/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…7 ITR 568 (Guj.) iii. DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi (ITAT, Delhi)-ITA No.1344/Del/2021 order dt. 27.10.2023 iv. Jayashri Shrikant Deshmukh vs. ACIT (ITAT, Pune) ITANo.776/Pun/2022 v.Ram Kishan vs. ITO in ITANo.1909/Del/2020 (ITAT, Delhi) vi. D.N. Singh vs. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) vii. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. ltd. 155 ITR 711 (SC) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69/69A are applicable on cumulative satisfaction of the condition prescribed therein and once the assessee has explained the nature and source of the income or assets then provisions of section 69A are not appl…

Shri Rajendra Singh Tawar, Indore vs. I.T.O. 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 266/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Rajendra Singh Tawar Ito 1(1) 763 Solsinda Sanwer Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aevpt 5691P Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 .11.2023

Section 131Section 144Section 69A

…e assessee has produced the books of account duly audited but neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has considered the accounts. He has relied the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram 87 ITR 349 (SC) as well as in case of D.N. Singh vs. CIT 454 ITR 595 and submitted that when the amount deposited in the bank account does not belong to the assesse then the same cannot be assessed to tax in the hands of the assesse. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is highly unjustified and arbitrary when the assessee produced relevant record to establish tha…