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

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 397/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…ted. Page No. | 36 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 44. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) reported in 394 ITR 220. The Apex Court 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. 45. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Others has held that – “In Mukundram (supra) a…

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 396/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…ted. Page No. | 36 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 44. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) reported in 394 ITR 220. The Apex Court 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. 45. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Others has held that – “In Mukundram (supra) a…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…ition can be made merely based on the notings found in the loose sheets without any corroborative evidence placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Central Bureau Investigation vs. V. C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410. (ii) Common Cause vs. Union of Inda, 394 ITR 220 (SC). (iii) CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary, 296 ITR 619 (Delhi). 17. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits that the statement given by the assessee during the course of search and seizure operations u/s 132(4) together with the notings in the Diary 20 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 constitutes an incriminating material and…

DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 5123/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he absence of any corroboration or further investigation made by the Assessing Officer the addition based on this paper cannot be sustained. 11. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (iii) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd. 383 ITR 320 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT Vs. Umesh Ishrani 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) (viii) CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)…

Brahmaputra Infraprojects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4123/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he absence of any corroboration or further investigation made by the Assessing Officer the addition based on this paper cannot be sustained. 11. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (iii) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd. 383 ITR 320 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT Vs. Umesh Ishrani 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) (viii) CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4122/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he absence of any corroboration or further investigation made by the Assessing Officer the addition based on this paper cannot be sustained. 11. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (iii) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd. 383 ITR 320 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT Vs. Umesh Ishrani 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) (viii) CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)…

Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4121/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he absence of any corroboration or further investigation made by the Assessing Officer the addition based on this paper cannot be sustained. 11. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (iii) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd. 383 ITR 320 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT Vs. Umesh Ishrani 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) (viii) CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4120/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he absence of any corroboration or further investigation made by the Assessing Officer the addition based on this paper cannot be sustained. 11. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (iii) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd. 383 ITR 320 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT Vs. Umesh Ishrani 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) (viii) CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)…

Brahmaputra Infraprojects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4119/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he absence of any corroboration or further investigation made by the Assessing Officer the addition based on this paper cannot be sustained. 11. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (iii) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd. 383 ITR 320 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT Vs. Umesh Ishrani 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) (viii) CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4118/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he absence of any corroboration or further investigation made by the Assessing Officer the addition based on this paper cannot be sustained. 11. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (iii) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd. 383 ITR 320 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT Vs. Umesh Ishrani 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) (viii) CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4117/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…he absence of any corroboration or further investigation made by the Assessing Officer the addition based on this paper cannot be sustained. 11. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (iii) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd. 383 ITR 320 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT Vs. Umesh Ishrani 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) (viii) CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)…

ACIT, CC-3, Surat vs. Shri Abishek R Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Abhishek Ramniklal Shah, Surat. 4/E, Anjan Shalaka Apartments, Opp. Lal Bungalow, Parle Point, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Asnps2066B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 18/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…is concerned. The presumption u/s 292(c) of the Act is against the person from whose premises, the document are found and seized and not against the 3rd party. The assessee cited case laws of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Common cause Vs. UOI [20171 394 ITR 220 (SO to support this contention. The assessee also cited case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C Shukla in support of this contention. The assessee also cited case laws CIT vs. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd. [20171 397 ITR 246 of Bombav High Court in which it has been held that there is no direct evidence whatsoever to allege that mo…

Rajeshwer Singh Yadav, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1910/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…sary to fasten the liability. Even correct and authentic entries in the books of account, cannot without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix a liability upon a person. 12.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India, 394 ITR 220 has also laid down the principle that loose papers/documents recovered by authorities, had no evidentiary values. 12.7 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kushan Chand Chela Ram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) also laid down the dictum that evidence collected at the back of the Assessee, has to be the evidence, otherwise, same is not admissible. 12…

Rajeshwer Yadav, Uttar Padesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1909/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…sary to fasten the liability. Even correct and authentic entries in the books of account, cannot without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix a liability upon a person. 12.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India, 394 ITR 220 has also laid down the principle that loose papers/documents recovered by authorities, had no evidentiary values. 12.7 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kushan Chand Chela Ram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) also laid down the dictum that evidence collected at the back of the Assessee, has to be the evidence, otherwise, same is not admissible. 12…

Rakesh Kumar Bansal, Gujrat vs. DCIT, Central Cercle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2516/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…and without providing the same to the assessee, without giving opportunity to cross-examination is no material more so when such material is itself vague/unreliable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. Common Cost Vs. Union of India (UOI) [394 ITR 220] (SC); 2. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [281 CTR 241] (SC); 3. Kishan Chand Challa Ram Vs. CIT [125 ITR 713] (SC); 4. CIT Vs. Sunita Dudda [100 Taxmann.com 526] (SC). 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on th…

Geeta Bansal, Gujrat vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2515/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…and without providing the same to the assessee, without giving opportunity to cross-examination is no material more so when such material is itself vague/unreliable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. Common Cost Vs. Union of India (UOI) [394 ITR 220] (SC); 2. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [281 CTR 241] (SC); 3. Kishan Chand Challa Ram Vs. CIT [125 ITR 713] (SC); 4. CIT Vs. Sunita Dudda [100 Taxmann.com 526] (SC). 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on th…

Madhurendra Nath, Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 16/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 so as to constitute the evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being of not evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause & Ors vs. Union of India 394 ITR 220. Since a seized document was not part of the books of accounts maintained in regular course of business therefore, the same cannot be used against the assessee when the person from the possession of whom it is found has not accepted the transactions. The learned AR has further contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO rec…

Smt. Neeta Nath L/H of Late Dr. Jitendra Nath, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 so as to constitute the evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being of not evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause & Ors vs. Union of India 394 ITR 220. Since a seized document was not part of the books of accounts maintained in regular course of business therefore, the same cannot be used against the assessee when the person from the possession of whom it is found has not accepted the transactions. The learned AR has further contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO rec…

Mekaster Finlease Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR

…sheet No. 8) and not in MR 71/91. Resultantly, in view of our earlier discussion, section 34 cannot at all be pressed into service against him.” 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, A registered Society Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220. 12. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra], notings found in the loose sheets would not do any good to the Revenue. The assessee has claimed 25 paise or 0.25% on the strength of the statement of kingpin Shri Tarun Goyal, who in his statement recorded under oath u/s 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 7 ITA No.953/Del…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…erials are a dumb document and they do not contain the signature of the trustees of the appellant or even employees of the appellant. Hence, they cannot be relied. The appellant relies on the following decisions: a. Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs UOI 394 ITR 220 b. ACIT Vs Layers Export P Ltd 53 ITR(Trib) 416 (Page No. 1332 of PB-6) iv. The materials were not seized from the office premises of the appellant. Hence, they cannot be relied on. The department must bring on record irrefutable proof that these materials relate to the appellant. S. 132(4A) of the Act states as under: ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/…