Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT

171 ITR 532High Court1988#2235 most cited

What is Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT authority for?

Section 68, dealing with unexplained cash credits, applies only when an amount is found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee. If the assessee does not maintain books or the credit is not found in their books, an addition under Section 68 cannot be made.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT · 171 ITR 532 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · books of account · credit in books · no books of account · applicability of Section 68 · Bhaichand N. Gandhi · addition under Section 68

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 69Section 115BBESection 153DSection 234BSection 234CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceaddition u/s 68addition under section 68unexplained cash creditsection 44absection 68genuineness of the transactionundisclosed incomesection 115bbsection 69section 250(6)section 263

Judgments citing Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an…

Hyvolt Electricals, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-55(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5175/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…the books of the assessee which is Hyvolt Electricals. 4. That the Learned Assessing Officer has failed to note that U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, books of accounts must of assessee himself and not of any other assessee. In Smt Shanta Devi v. CIT [1998] 171 ITR 532 (P&H), it was held that a perusal of Section 68 would show that the expression books has been used with reference to the word assessee. In other words, such books of account have to be books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee. Thus books of account of a partnership firm cannot be considered to be the books of account of the par…

M/S Namdhari Industrial Traders Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 917/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Mukhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…he case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the Hon'ble P&H in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi Vs. CIT [1998] 171 ITR 532 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119, have held that the initial onus is upon the assessee to establish the entity of the investor, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Since the assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus in this case the Ld. C…

Dict, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2409/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…o the expression ‘books’ the emphasis is on the word ‘assessee’. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT [19881 (171 ITR 532) (Punj.&Har.). Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Sheraton Apparels v ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 0020((Bom), has held that the term ‘books of account’ means ‘books of account’ which have been maintained for determining any source of income. The term ‘source of income’, as understood in the Act, is to identify or classify income so as to…

Dict, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2407/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…o the expression ‘books’ the emphasis is on the word ‘assessee’. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT [19881 (171 ITR 532) (Punj.&Har.). Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Sheraton Apparels v ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 0020((Bom), has held that the term ‘books of account’ means ‘books of account’ which have been maintained for determining any source of income. The term ‘source of income’, as understood in the Act, is to identify or classify income so as to…

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Kanakkilianallur Narayana Reddiyar Manivannan, Tirupur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2406/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…o the expression ‘books’ the emphasis is on the word ‘assessee’. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT [19881 (171 ITR 532) (Punj.&Har.). Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Sheraton Apparels v ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 0020((Bom), has held that the term ‘books of account’ means ‘books of account’ which have been maintained for determining any source of income. The term ‘source of income’, as understood in the Act, is to identify or classify income so as to…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. Shri Kanakilliyanallur Narayanan Nehru, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2825/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…o the expression ‘books’ the emphasis is on the word ‘assessee’. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT [19881 (171 ITR 532) (Punj.&Har.). Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Sheraton Apparels v ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 0020((Bom), has held that the term ‘books of account’ means ‘books of account’ which have been maintained for determining any source of income. The term ‘source of income’, as understood in the Act, is to identify or classify income so as to…

Dict, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2411/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…o the expression ‘books’ the emphasis is on the word ‘assessee’. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT [19881 (171 ITR 532) (Punj.&Har.). Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Sheraton Apparels v ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 0020((Bom), has held that the term ‘books of account’ means ‘books of account’ which have been maintained for determining any source of income. The term ‘source of income’, as understood in the Act, is to identify or classify income so as to…

Dict, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2410/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…o the expression ‘books’ the emphasis is on the word ‘assessee’. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT [19881 (171 ITR 532) (Punj.&Har.). Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Sheraton Apparels v ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 0020((Bom), has held that the term ‘books of account’ means ‘books of account’ which have been maintained for determining any source of income. The term ‘source of income’, as understood in the Act, is to identify or classify income so as to…

Dict, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2408/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…o the expression ‘books’ the emphasis is on the word ‘assessee’. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT [19881 (171 ITR 532) (Punj.&Har.). Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Sheraton Apparels v ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 0020((Bom), has held that the term ‘books of account’ means ‘books of account’ which have been maintained for determining any source of income. The term ‘source of income’, as understood in the Act, is to identify or classify income so as to…

Balwant Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…regard assessee placed reliance on various decisions which are as follows: i) K.C.C. Software Ltd. and Ors. vs. DIT and Ors. 298 ITR 1 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 iii) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) iv) Shanta Devi vs. CIT 171 ITR 532 (P&H) In view of these submissions, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made of Rs. 2,49,900/- may be deleted. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rightly observed that no evidence with regard to the cash deposits made out of agricultural income of HUF and past savings were furnished by the assessee during the A…

A.N.Muthiah, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-21(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2188/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…capital gains tax is not paid on the sale of gold, the same is to be added back as income from other sources in the absence of any enabling provision for the same. 9. The Learned Commissioner ought to have known the decision of the ITAT in Shanta Devi v CIT 171 ITR 532 , wherein the conditions precedent for invocation of Section 68 have been laid down and in as much as none of the conditions exist, he ought to have set aside the original order. 10. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing.” :- 3 -: 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an bank employ…

Rita Goel, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2929/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar and Shri VipinFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…ions of the Tribunal and High Court which are as under:- — Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT - 407 ITR 254 (ALL) — Vijay Kumar V ITO -ITA 2483/2015-Order dt. 27.11.18 (DEL-F) — Inder Singh V ITO -ITA 1931/2016 -order dt. 5.12.18 (DEL-B) — SMT. SHANTA DEVI V CIT (1987) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) - Rameshbhai Somebhai Patel V ITO 1864/Ahd/2014 - order dt 19.04.18 Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v ITO [2018] 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahmedabad - Trib.C). 8.1 Further, on merits, he submitted that here in this case Assessing Officer at page 3 has mentioned that assessee’s name is ‘Smt. Archana Agarwal’ to whom he has issued summons u/s. 131. Firs…

Anchal Goel, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2928/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar and Shri VipinFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…ions of the Tribunal and High Court which are as under:- — Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT - 407 ITR 254 (ALL) — Vijay Kumar V ITO -ITA 2483/2015-Order dt. 27.11.18 (DEL-F) — Inder Singh V ITO -ITA 1931/2016 -order dt. 5.12.18 (DEL-B) — SMT. SHANTA DEVI V CIT (1987) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) - Rameshbhai Somebhai Patel V ITO 1864/Ahd/2014 - order dt 19.04.18 Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v ITO [2018] 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahmedabad - Trib.C). 8.1 Further, on merits, he submitted that here in this case Assessing Officer at page 3 has mentioned that assessee’s name is ‘Smt. Archana Agarwal’ to whom he has issued summons u/s. 131. Firs…

Madhu Goel, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2927/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar and Shri VipinFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…ions of the Tribunal and High Court which are as under:- — Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT - 407 ITR 254 (ALL) — Vijay Kumar V ITO -ITA 2483/2015-Order dt. 27.11.18 (DEL-F) — Inder Singh V ITO -ITA 1931/2016 -order dt. 5.12.18 (DEL-B) — SMT. SHANTA DEVI V CIT (1987) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) - Rameshbhai Somebhai Patel V ITO 1864/Ahd/2014 - order dt 19.04.18 Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v ITO [2018] 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahmedabad - Trib.C). 8.1 Further, on merits, he submitted that here in this case Assessing Officer at page 3 has mentioned that assessee’s name is ‘Smt. Archana Agarwal’ to whom he has issued summons u/s. 131. Firs…

Sh. Satish Kumar, Jalandhar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhavani Shankar, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.105/Asr./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Satish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Camp Bench at Jalandhar Before Shri N.K. Saini, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09) Shri Satish Kumar Income Tax Officer VPO. UGGI, Ward-IV(1), Vs. Dist. Jalandhar Jalandhar PAN – AMNPK6987D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashray Sarna, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Bhavani Shankar, D.R Date of Hearing: 08.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 15.01.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the asse…

ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Kolkata

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

ITA 2008/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2008/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri K. Mondal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

…to 1-4-1978 in relation to the assessment year 1978-79. Distinction has also to be made between the books of assessee and its creditors. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, as was observed in 171 ITR 532 (P and H). 10. In the matter of the shifting of the burden of proof, it has been held in 212 ITR 199 (Orissa), that where the assessee filed confirmation letters from the creditors to explain and establish the source of credits, and the Assessing Officer does not call upon the assessee to adduce any further evidence in support of the letters, th…