Smt. Hemlata Agarwal v. CIT

64 ITR 428High Court1967#9848 most cited

What is Smt. Hemlata Agarwal v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment under section 147 requires 'reason to believe' and cannot be initiated based on mere suspicion.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Smt. Hemlata Agarwal v. CIT · section 147 · reason to believe · reason to suspect · reassessment · income tax act · Allahabad High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 5(2)share capital and share premiumsource of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 250(4)borrowed satisfactionadmission of additional evidenceshare application moneytangible materialrule 46anon-resident

Judgments citing Smt. Hemlata Agarwal v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata vs. Ritu Kejriwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2223/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 2223/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ACIT, Central Circle-4(1), Ritu Kejriwal Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFMPK8907R Appearances: Department represented by : Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Assessee represented by : None. Date of concluding the hearing : February 13th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : February…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…ng is possible U/s.147 of the act, since the satisfaction is based on "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect" i) CIT V. Jeskaran Bhuvalka (1970) 76 ITR 128 (AP) ii) N. Sundareswaram V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 173 (Ker) iii) Smt.Hemlata Agarwal V. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 428 (All) iv) ITO V. Lakshmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) v) India Finance & Construction Co., (P) Ltd V. B.N.Panda, DCIT (1993) 200 ITR 710 (Born) 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…ng is possible U/s.147 of the act, since the satisfaction is based on "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect" i) CIT V. Jeskaran Bhuvalka (1970) 76 ITR 128 (AP) ii) N. Sundareswaram V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 173 (Ker) iii) Smt.Hemlata Agarwal V. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 428 (All) iv) ITO V. Lakshmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) v) India Finance & Construction Co., (P) Ltd V. B.N.Panda, DCIT (1993) 200 ITR 710 (Born) 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…ng is possible U/s.147 of the act, since the satisfaction is based on "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect" i) CIT V. Jeskaran Bhuvalka (1970) 76 ITR 128 (AP) ii) N. Sundareswaram V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 173 (Ker) iii) Smt.Hemlata Agarwal V. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 428 (All) iv) ITO V. Lakshmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) v) India Finance & Construction Co., (P) Ltd V. B.N.Panda, DCIT (1993) 200 ITR 710 (Born) 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd…

Smt. Bhagwati Devi Meel, Mohan Kunj Veer Tejaji Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar C/O Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants, 5Th Floor, Kilestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Sikar, Ward-3 Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…en to ITO but the appellant authority cannot evade the issue brought before it by way of appeal either by an assessee who is substantially assessed or one who is protectively assessed. Again Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Hemlata Agarwal vs. CIT 64 ITR 428 held that Tribunal as a fact finding body cannot confirm the protective assessment. Therefore, once the addition is confirmed in the hands of firm M/s Shri Ram Borewell & Construction Co. on substantive basis, the same addition cannot be confirmed in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. In view of above, protective addition made by the A…

Mahavir Fleet Operators Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1373/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemahavir Fleet Operators Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Gat No. 1349, Khandvenagar, Of Income Tax, Wagholi, Pune – 412307 Circle – 11(2), Pune Vs. Pan : Aafcm9834N

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 68

…und to be liable may become time barred; but the Department cannot recover the tax from both the assessees in respect of the same income. We are in respectful agreement. Similar view was expressed by Allahabad High Court in Smt. Hemlata Agarwal vs. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 428 (All). The question arose in the circumstances where certain income was assessed in the first instance in the status of HUF of husband. That was set aside. Assessment was then made against husband which was challenged before AAC. In the course of assessment of husband, a finding was recorded that wife was not engaged in any business. However, havi…

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…e appellate or revisional authority to give a clear finding as to the assessee who is liable to be so assessed leaving the one who is aggrieved to get redress by appropriate proceedings. This has been held so in the case of Smt. Hemlata Agarwal vs. CIT [1967J 64 ITR 428 (All.) In view of this, the Hon'ble ITAT is requested to give a fact finding as to the owner of the profit and decide whether the addition in the case of the assessee is to be protective or substantive. 2. The ITAT is the final fact-finding authority and it cannot give relief on the basis of omissions of the Assessing officer as held by the Delhi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Jaico Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jaico Realtors Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner No. 2650, Ground Floor, Of Income Tax, 37Th B Cross, Vs. 28Th Main, 9Th Block, Central Circle – 1 (4), Bangalore. Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 009. Pan: Aabcj8421G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 68

…ing is possible U/s.147 of the act, since the satisfaction isbased on "reason to believe" and not 'reason to suspect" i) CIT V. Jeskaran huvalka (1970) 76 ITR 128 (AP) ii) N. Sundareswaram V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 173 (Ker) iii) Smt. Hemlata Agarwal V. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 428 (All) iv) ITO V. Lakshmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) v) India Finance & Construction Co., (P) Ltd V. B.N.Panda, DCIT (1993) 200 ITR 710 (Bom) 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd (…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 4964, 4965 & 4966/Del./2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Essel vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16, House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACB 1067H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, A.R. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: All these appeals have been filed by…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 4964, 4965 & 4966/Del./2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Essel vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16, House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACB 1067H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, A.R. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: All these appeals have been filed by…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 4964, 4965 & 4966/Del./2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Essel vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16, House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACB 1067H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, A.R. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: All these appeals have been filed by…

Smt. Hemlata Agarwal v. CIT (64 ITR 428) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax