Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT

33 ITR 786High Court1958#2034 most cited

What is Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT authority for?

Tax authorities cannot reject an assessee's affidavit or a retraction of an admission of income without providing an opportunity to substantiate the claims or cross-examine the deponent. Simply lacking documentary evidence is not sufficient ground for outright rejection of such evidence.

56

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

Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT · 33 ITR 786 · affidavit rejection · retracted statement section 132(4) · opportunity to substantiate · cross-examination · evidentiary value affidavit · natural justice assessment · Section 131 evidence · survey statement retraction · assessee's statement

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 131Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysection 140asection 271(l)surrender of incomesection 151(1)section 151(2)survey under section 133asection 282section 271(l)(c)section 271fsection 292cnon-speaking order

Judgments citing Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT

ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 5613/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1842/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1097/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 3021/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 3019/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 2986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 2985/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1930/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1929/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1928/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1927/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1907/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 3020/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…l to suggest that some documentary evidence exists and has not been produced by the assessee despite being required to do so. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. CIT, 33 ITR 786 wherein it was held that "the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit filed by the assessee on the mere ground that he had produced no documentary evidence; if it was not accepted as sufficient proof the assessee should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his ass…

Swarup Kumar Saha, Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 50, Kolkata

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

ITA 245/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri K.M Roy, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kr. Kureel, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 18Section 194HSection 40

…ed by wife and son of the assessee were never examined by the Learned CITA by admitting the same as additional evidences. In this regard , he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.Sohan Lal Gupta vs CIT reported in (1958) 33 ITR 786 (All), wherein it was held that the tribunal had rejected the affidavit on the mere ground that there was no documentary evidence in corroboration in the form of any correspondence or otherwise on this point. Accordingly, it was held that the assessee was entitled to assume that the IT authorities were satisfied with the affidavit as sufficient pr…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vimal Gupta, New Delhi

In the result the C.O.No

ITA 1211/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle 7 Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room No.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar Ara Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Pan: Aahpg 7807 J &

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2006-07 ACIT, Central Circle 7 vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room no.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar ARA Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi PAN: AAHPG 7807 J & ITA No. 1211/Del/11 A.Y. 2006-07 ACIT, Circle 34(1) vs. Vimal Gupta New Delhi New Delhi Cross Objection No. 105/Del/2011 (In ITA No. 1211/Del/2011) A.Y. 2006-07 Vimal Gupta vs. ACIT, Circle 34(1) New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Vinod Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result the C.O.No

ITA 1603/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle 7 Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room No.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar Ara Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Pan: Aahpg 7807 J &

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2006-07 ACIT, Central Circle 7 vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room no.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar ARA Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi PAN: AAHPG 7807 J & ITA No. 1211/Del/11 A.Y. 2006-07 ACIT, Circle 34(1) vs. Vimal Gupta New Delhi New Delhi Cross Objection No. 105/Del/2011 (In ITA No. 1211/Del/2011) A.Y. 2006-07 Vimal Gupta vs. ACIT, Circle 34(1) New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D…