Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT

226 ITR 344High Court1997#3520 most cited

What is Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT authority for?

The revenue bears the burden to prove that an assessee's real investment exceeded the investment recorded in their books. Uncorroborated evidence alone is insufficient to empower the Assessing Officer to make an addition under Section 69B.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT · Section 69B · burden of proof on revenue · unexplained investment · corroboration · addition without proof · cash payment

Also reported as

89 Taxmann 544

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 69BSection 153ASection 69CSection 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 131(1)(d)section 55asection 142(2)section 4(1)section 142asection 38section 131(1)section 55warrant of authorisationsection 60section 69b

Judgments citing Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT

ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Atul Pravinchandra Parekh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito-15(3)(1), Shri Atul Pravinchandra Room No.106, Parekh बनाम/ Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, 303, Shobha Apartment, 3Rd Vs. Tardeo Road, Floor, S.No. Road, Mumbai-400007 Tambe Nagar, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Ambpp5491R

Section 143(1)Section 69B

…ssee and further the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amounts or the explanation is not found satisfactory in that case, the excess amount may be deemed to be income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana vs CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj.), Hindustan Mills and Electric Stores 232 ITR 421 (MP), CIT vs Dinesh Jain; Lata Jain (2013) 352 ITR 629, CIT vs Wester Estates 209 ITR 343 (Cal.), CIT vs Bajranglal Bansal 335 ITR 572 (Del.), Dhanush General Store vs CIT 339 ITR 651 (Chhatisgarh), CIT 8 Shri Atul Pravinchandra Prakash vs Sadhna Gupta (2013) 352 ITR 595 (Del.), CIT vs Fair…

ACIT, Circle - 50, Kolkata vs. Kabita Das (Saha), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2175/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

…I.T.A. No. 2175/KOL./2010 Assessment year: 2005-2006 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 2175/KOL/ 2010 Assessment Year : 2005-2006 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,...........................Appellant Circle-50, Kolkata, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 9th Floor, Kolkata-700 014 -Vs.- Mrs. Kabita Das (Saha),.....................................................Respondent 7/2, Short Street, Flat 4A, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700 017 [PAN : AJEPS 0855 N] Appearances by: Shri M.K.…

H.S. Bedi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA - 146 / 2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…staining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj) to submit that for the purposes of Section 69B of the Act the burden would shift to the Assessee once the Revenue is able to demonstrate, by way of a report of the DVO, that the value disclosed in the sale deed for the purchase of the property by way of investment was less than the market value. Reliance is also placed on the decision…

R.S. Bedi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA - 144 / 2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…staining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj) to submit that for the purposes of Section 69B of the Act the burden would shift to the Assessee once the Revenue is able to demonstrate, by way of a report of the DVO, that the value disclosed in the sale deed for the purchase of the property by way of investment was less than the market value. Reliance is also placed on the decision…

R.S. Bedi

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA/146/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…staining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj) to submit that for the purposes of Section 69B of the Act the burden would shift to the Assessee once the Revenue is able to demonstrate, by way of a report of the DVO, that the value disclosed in the sale deed for the purchase of the property by way of investment was less than the market value. Reliance is also placed on the decision…

R.S. Bedi

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA/144/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…staining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj) to submit that for the purposes of Section 69B of the Act the burden would shift to the Assessee once the Revenue is able to demonstrate, by way of a report of the DVO, that the value disclosed in the sale deed for the purchase of the property by way of investment was less than the market value. Reliance is also placed on the decision…

R.S. Bedi

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA/145/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…staining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj) to submit that for the purposes of Section 69B of the Act the burden would shift to the Assessee once the Revenue is able to demonstrate, by way of a report of the DVO, that the value disclosed in the sale deed for the purchase of the property by way of investment was less than the market value. Reliance is also placed on the decision…

M.S. Bedi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA - 145/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…staining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj) to submit that for the purposes of Section 69B of the Act the burden would shift to the Assessee once the Revenue is able to demonstrate, by way of a report of the DVO, that the value disclosed in the sale deed for the purchase of the property by way of investment was less than the market value. Reliance is also placed on the decision…

H.S. Bedi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA - 146/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…staining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj) to submit that for the purposes of Section 69B of the Act the burden would shift to the Assessee once the Revenue is able to demonstrate, by way of a report of the DVO, that the value disclosed in the sale deed for the purchase of the property by way of investment was less than the market value. Reliance is also placed on the decision…

R.S. Bedi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA-144/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…staining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj) to submit that for the purposes of Section 69B of the Act the burden would shift to the Assessee once the Revenue is able to demonstrate, by way of a report of the DVO, that the value disclosed in the sale deed for the purchase of the property by way of investment was less than the market value. Reliance is also placed on the decision…

Commissioner of Income Tax VII vs. Shri Karan Khandelwal

The appeals are allowed

ITA/334/2009HC Delhi23 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Respondent: Mr P.S. Khandelwal in person for Mr Karan Khandelwal

…r. Maratha, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) has been explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of. Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. Commissioner of Income Tax : [1997] 226 ITR 344 (Raj.). In P.V. Kalyanasundaram (supra) the assessee purchased certain land for a sum of Rs.4.10 lakh. During a search, certain notes on loose sheets, allegedly in the hands of the assessee were found and seized. The department recorded the statement of the vendor who confirmed that he had in fact received a total sum of Rs.34.85 lakh,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

ITA/82/2009HC Delhi23 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Respondent: Mr P.S. Khandelwal in person for Mr Karan Khandelwal

…r. Maratha, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) has been explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of. Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. Commissioner of Income Tax : [1997] 226 ITR 344 (Raj.). In P.V. Kalyanasundaram (supra) the assessee purchased certain land for a sum of Rs.4.10 lakh. During a search, certain notes on loose sheets, allegedly in the hands of the assessee were found and seized. The department recorded the statement of the vendor who confirmed that he had in fact received a total sum of Rs.34.85 lakh,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

ITA - 82 / 2009HC Delhi23 Apr 2012
For Respondent: Mr P.S. Khandelwal in person for Mr Karan Khandelwal

…r. Maratha, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) has been explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of. Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. Commissioner of Income Tax : [1997] 226 ITR 344 (Raj.). In P.V. Kalyanasundaram (supra) the assessee purchased certain land for a sum of Rs.4.10 lakh. During a search, certain notes on loose sheets, allegedly in the hands of the assessee were found and seized. The department recorded the statement of the vendor who confirmed that he had in fact received a total sum of Rs.34.85 lakh,…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Puneet Sabharwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 758 / 2005HC Delhi03 Dec 2010
Section 45Section 48Section 55ASection 69B

…red. Mr. Maratha, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) has been explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Amar Kumari Surana Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 226 ITR 344. 10. Having regard to the consistent views taken by this Court in the aforesaid and other judgments which bind us, we decide the question of law no.2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, as a consequence, this appeal is dismissed. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 03, 2010 SKB…