Smt. Gunwati Bai Rati Lai v. CIT(MP)

146 ITR 140High Court1983#12168 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Judgments citing Smt. Gunwati Bai Rati Lai v. CIT(MP)

Dhimant A. Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO-33(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 567/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…Supreme Court stated in the case A.K.K. Namblar Vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 652 pp 654 that If the affidavit is not properly verified it cannot be admitted in evidence as It is not evidence in the eyes of law. In the case of Gunwantibal Rabial Vs. CIT (MP) 146 ITR 140 and Silk Museum Vs. CIT (Gu)] 257 ITR 22 it is held that an affidavit is a piece of evidence, which along with other material on record, has to be taken into consideration before arriving at a finding. A statement by a deponent can be held to be unreliable either on the basis of cross examination of the deponent or by reference to other material…

Shri Bharat Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3256/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…on'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under: "25. In the light of the above facts, the evidentiary value of the affidavits is open to serious doubts. The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Gunwati Bai Rati Lai vs. CIT(MP) 146 ITR 140 explained the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (Supra) and held that the said decision cannot be considered to have laid down the proposition that unless the deponents of the affidavits are cross-examined, the affidavits cannot be dejected. It was explained that the decision of the Supreme Court lays d…

Shri Bharat Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2001/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…on'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under: "25. In the light of the above facts, the evidentiary value of the affidavits is open to serious doubts. The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Gunwati Bai Rati Lai vs. CIT(MP) 146 ITR 140 explained the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (Supra) and held that the said decision cannot be considered to have laid down the proposition that unless the deponents of the affidavits are cross-examined, the affidavits cannot be dejected. It was explained that the decision of the Supreme Court lays d…

Dr. Subrata Kundu, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Burdwan

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1815/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

Section 131Section 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2010-11 Dr. Subrata Kundu ACIT, Circle-1, Aayakar बनाम D.N. Tiwari Road, Bhawan, Court / V/s. Borehat, P.O. Nutangaj, Compound, Burdwan- Burdwan-713 101 713 101 [PAN No.AFFPK 8617 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-03-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 12-05-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /…

DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai vs. Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5978/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…e learned CIT(A) has rightly refused to admit the same as the said belated affidavit has no evidentiary value. The ld. D.R. relied on the decision in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company v. CIT (1956)30 ITR 181 (SC), in the case of Smt. Gunwantbai v. CIT (1983) 146 ITR 140(MP HC) and in the case of Silk Museum v. CIT (2003) 257 ITR 22(Guj. HC). The ld. DR submitted that the perusal of the impounded documents during the survey operation clearly shows that Rs. 35 lacs have been paid in cash. The statement of Shri Diwan Singh was recorded on 26-04-2007 u/s 131 of the Act whereby he confirmed and admitted that unaccoun…

Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5813/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…e learned CIT(A) has rightly refused to admit the same as the said belated affidavit has no evidentiary value. The ld. D.R. relied on the decision in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company v. CIT (1956)30 ITR 181 (SC), in the case of Smt. Gunwantbai v. CIT (1983) 146 ITR 140(MP HC) and in the case of Silk Museum v. CIT (2003) 257 ITR 22(Guj. HC). The ld. DR submitted that the perusal of the impounded documents during the survey operation clearly shows that Rs. 35 lacs have been paid in cash. The statement of Shri Diwan Singh was recorded on 26-04-2007 u/s 131 of the Act whereby he confirmed and admitted that unaccoun…

Supriya Paul, Burdwan vs. ITO, 2(3), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 107/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148

…cord, has to be taken into consideration before arriving at a finding. A statement by a deponent can be held to be unreliable either on the basis of cross-examination of the deponent or by reference to other material on record (Gunwantibai Ratilal Vs CIT (MP) 146 ITR 140,Silk Museum Vs CIT (Guj) 257 ITR 22) Affidavit need not always be accepted as correct. It is neither a rule of prudence nor a rule of law that the statements made in an affidavit which remains uncontroverted, must invariably be accepted as true and reliable. Ordinarily, in the absence of denial, the statements may be accepted as true but if ther…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/342/2011HC Delhi15 Feb 2012
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A

…ndore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High 2012:DHC:1057-DB ITA No.342-2011 Page 28 of 46 Court in the case of Smt.Gunwati Bai Rati Lal vs. CIT(MP) 146 ITR 140 explained the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (Supra) and held that the said decision cannot be considered to have laid down the proposition that unless the deponents of the affidavits are cross-examined, the affidavits cannot be rejected. It was explained that the decision of the Supreme Court…

Smt. Gunwati Bai Rati Lai v. CIT(MP) (146 ITR 140) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax