Society v. UOI

394 ITR 220Supreme Court of India2017#141 most cited

What is Society v. UOI authority for?

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

493

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Society v. UOI · Common Cause (a registered society) 394 ITR 220 · loose papers evidentiary value · uncorroborated documents search · independent corroboration undisclosed income · Section 132(4) statement · Section 292C · Section 34 Evidence Act

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153CSection 143(3)Section 292CSection 132(4A)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 292ccsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 34retraction of statementsection 292cloose papersretracted statementsection 153c(1)statement under section 132(4)protective assessmentsection 131(1a)

Judgments citing Society v. UOI

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 213/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…withdrawn. 4.4 However, Ld. AO continued to allege that the payments were made to various persons including the assessee, the then Highway Minster (represented by the abbreviation HM). The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common cause V/s UOI (394 ITR 220), as relied upon by the assessee, was held to be distinguishable. The Ld. AO also held that the denial by the assessee was not backed by any logic or evidence. In the present case, the entries in the seized material were in the form of proper accounts, maintained systematically on daily basis with tick-marks showing that the entries were verified…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 127/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…withdrawn. 4.4 However, Ld. AO continued to allege that the payments were made to various persons including the assessee, the then Highway Minster (represented by the abbreviation HM). The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common cause V/s UOI (394 ITR 220), as relied upon by the assessee, was held to be distinguishable. The Ld. AO also held that the denial by the assessee was not backed by any logic or evidence. In the present case, the entries in the seized material were in the form of proper accounts, maintained systematically on daily basis with tick-marks showing that the entries were verified…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 126/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…withdrawn. 4.4 However, Ld. AO continued to allege that the payments were made to various persons including the assessee, the then Highway Minster (represented by the abbreviation HM). The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common cause V/s UOI (394 ITR 220), as relied upon by the assessee, was held to be distinguishable. The Ld. AO also held that the denial by the assessee was not backed by any logic or evidence. In the present case, the entries in the seized material were in the form of proper accounts, maintained systematically on daily basis with tick-marks showing that the entries were verified…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 125/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…withdrawn. 4.4 However, Ld. AO continued to allege that the payments were made to various persons including the assessee, the then Highway Minster (represented by the abbreviation HM). The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common cause V/s UOI (394 ITR 220), as relied upon by the assessee, was held to be distinguishable. The Ld. AO also held that the denial by the assessee was not backed by any logic or evidence. In the present case, the entries in the seized material were in the form of proper accounts, maintained systematically on daily basis with tick-marks showing that the entries were verified…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vijay Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…upon to frame the assessment orders. The observation of AO would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material as non-speaking documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI ['2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- "6.4 The Assessing Officer has made oat th…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…upon to frame the assessment orders. The observation of AO would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material as non-speaking documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI ['2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- "6.4 The Assessing Officer has made oat th…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…upon to frame the assessment orders. The observation of AO would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material as non-speaking documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI ['2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- "6.4 The Assessing Officer has made oat th…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…relied upon to frame the assessment orders. The observation of AO would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- Page 19 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…relied upon to frame the assessment orders. The observation of AO would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- Page 19 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…relied upon to frame the assessment orders. The observation of AO would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- Page 19 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…relied upon to frame the assessment orders. The observation of AO would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) for the proposition that unsigned loose slips cannot be acted upon so as to sustain addition. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [19991 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of the expression "document" in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- Page 19 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Awas Developers, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 368/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 184Section 40ASection 68

…rsity in ITA No. 3264 to 3668/Mum/2022 where with respect to evidentiary value of loose paper found in the course of search was held as under: 30. In the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (a registered society) reported in 394 ITR 220, it was held that the documents recovered by the authorities will have no evidentiary value unless it is corroborated with any other independent evidence, i.e., uncorroborated loose papers found in the search cannot be taken as sole basis for determination of undisclosed income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of CBI vs. V C Shukla…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…ake addition solely on the basis of the statement made during the course of survey] vii. Loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive etc. are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated  Common Cause (A Registered Society) -vs.- UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)) : [Loose papers and electronic data not maintained regularly during the course of the business cannot be considered as admissible evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act] viii. Addition based on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures are not sustainable ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd.  Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta –vs.- DCIT (ITA N…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…ake addition solely on the basis of the statement made during the course of survey] vii. Loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive etc. are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated  Common Cause (A Registered Society) -vs.- UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)) : [Loose papers and electronic data not maintained regularly during the course of the business cannot be considered as admissible evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act] viii. Addition based on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures are not sustainable ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd.  Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta –vs.- DCIT (ITA N…

Rswm Ltd, Bhilwara vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

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

ITA 146/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

…of the seized material, the AO cannot make additions in assessee’s income on the basis of said loose paper. The assessee has relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- i) CBI v. V. C. Shukla & Ors. 1998 (3 SCC 410) (SC) ii) Common Cause v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) iii) T. S. Venkatesan v. ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal.) M/s RSWM Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) D.S. Suresh v. ACIT (ITA No.462 & 463/Bang/2020, dated 22-02- 2021) v) Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2004 & 2005/Mum/2021, dated 20- 03-2023) 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessee has not been provided with opportunity to…

Rswm Ltd, Bhilwara vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

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

ITA 145/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

…of the seized material, the AO cannot make additions in assessee’s income on the basis of said loose paper. The assessee has relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- i) CBI v. V. C. Shukla & Ors. 1998 (3 SCC 410) (SC) ii) Common Cause v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) iii) T. S. Venkatesan v. ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal.) M/s RSWM Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) D.S. Suresh v. ACIT (ITA No.462 & 463/Bang/2020, dated 22-02- 2021) v) Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2004 & 2005/Mum/2021, dated 20- 03-2023) 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessee has not been provided with opportunity to…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd, Kharigram

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

ITA 1929/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

…of the seized material, the AO cannot make additions in assessee’s income on the basis of said loose paper. The assessee has relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- i) CBI v. V. C. Shukla & Ors. 1998 (3 SCC 410) (SC) ii) Common Cause v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) iii) T. S. Venkatesan v. ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal.) M/s RSWM Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) D.S. Suresh v. ACIT (ITA No.462 & 463/Bang/2020, dated 22-02- 2021) v) Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2004 & 2005/Mum/2021, dated 20- 03-2023) 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessee has not been provided with opportunity to…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd, Kharigram

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

ITA 1928/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita Nos.145 & 146 /Del/2021 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69

…of the seized material, the AO cannot make additions in assessee’s income on the basis of said loose paper. The assessee has relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- i) CBI v. V. C. Shukla & Ors. 1998 (3 SCC 410) (SC) ii) Common Cause v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) iii) T. S. Venkatesan v. ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal.) M/s RSWM Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) D.S. Suresh v. ACIT (ITA No.462 & 463/Bang/2020, dated 22-02- 2021) v) Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2004 & 2005/Mum/2021, dated 20- 03-2023) 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessee has not been provided with opportunity to…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Mumbai

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

ITA 675/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…s do not constitute books of account. Revenue has not even alleged that the entries in these loose sheets and electronic data have been kept regularly during the course of business. The Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) reported in 394 ITR 220 has held that such detailed documents recovered by the authorities have no evidentiary value. Uncorroborated loose papers found in the search cannot be taken as a sole basis for determination of undisclosed income. 14.7. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs V.C. Shukla and Ors has held that - “In Mukundram (supra) after dealing with the word '…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

ITA 674/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…s do not constitute books of account. Revenue has not even alleged that the entries in these loose sheets and electronic data have been kept regularly during the course of business. The Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) reported in 394 ITR 220 has held that such detailed documents recovered by the authorities have no evidentiary value. Uncorroborated loose papers found in the search cannot be taken as a sole basis for determination of undisclosed income. 14.7. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs V.C. Shukla and Ors has held that - “In Mukundram (supra) after dealing with the word '…