Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Sanjaykumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…s.83.49 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 2. Aggrieved the assessee agitated the stand of Ld. AO before first appellate authority, however, relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Durgaprasad More (82 ITR 540) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801), Ld. first appellate authority reached a conclusion that the assessee miserably failed to lead evidences to substantiate the purchase transactions and therefore, the addition made by Ld. AO was to be confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], drawing our attention to…

Smt.Bhavna Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…very new to trading in penny stock and the earning of such huge income by a person not -known to such type of trading is against human probabilities, For, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (Supra) reported in 214 ITR 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that if there is sufficient indication based on the probabilities of an occurrence to disbelieve the statement made by the assessee, even when advanced with prima facie evidence, the AO may be justified in disbelieving the statement. (viii) Lastly, the appellant did not ask for cross examination o…

Smt. Heena Chheda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…very new to trading in penny stock and the earning of such huge income by a person not -known to such type of trading is against human probabilities, For, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (Supra) reported in 214 ITR 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that if there is sufficient indication based on the probabilities of an occurrence to disbelieve the statement made by the assessee, even when advanced with prima facie evidence, the AO may be justified in disbelieving the statement. (viii) Lastly, the appellant did not ask for cross examination o…

Shri Manoj Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…very new to trading in penny stock and the earning of such huge income by a person not -known to such type of trading is against human probabilities, For, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (Supra) reported in 214 ITR 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that if there is sufficient indication based on the probabilities of an occurrence to disbelieve the statement made by the assessee, even when advanced with prima facie evidence, the AO may be justified in disbelieving the statement. (viii) Lastly, the appellant did not ask for cross examination o…

Anita Rinku Patodia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1913/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) Smt. Anita Rinku Patodia Acit-Central Circle-3(2) बनाम/ 605, Business Classic Mumbai. Chincholi Bunder Road Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akrpp-7593-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar- Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. By Way Of This Appeal For Assessment Year 2007-08, The Assessee Has Challenged The Quantum Addition Of Rs.90 Lacs Made U/S 68 By Learned Assessing Officer While Framing Assessment U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 16/03/2015. The Additions Have Already Been Confirmed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-51/It 82/2015-

…ents by account payee cheques is not sacrosanct and is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction. Further, reliance is placed on C Vasantilal Co V/s CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206(SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) wherein it has been held that even strict rules of evidence do not apply to the proceedings under the Income Tax Act and the real test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is "Preponderance of probabilities" and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It is an undisputed fact that the accommodation entries taken from these four parties remain…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

…uired to produce these suppliers before the authorities which the assessee had failed to produce. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the ratio of decision of following case laws , as detailed hereunder:- (1) CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 . (2) Sumati Dayal v.CIT 214 ITR 801 (3) Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). (4) Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., 63 ITR 609 (SC) (5) McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148 (SC) (6) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (7) Chuharmal vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250/ 38 Taxman 190 (8) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (9) Nikunj Eximp In ITA no. 5604 of 2010 (Bomba…

Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer Smt. Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania V. 24, Saraswati Sadan Ward No. 17(2)(5) 1St Floor, 113 Keshavji Naik Road Mumbai Fort, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Adwpd 7778 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Haresh P. Shah Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

…test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is "Preponderance of Probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt". Reliance is placed on C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). 4 Smt. Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania However, Assessing Officer estimated the profit element at 12.5% from such purchases tre…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -6(4), Mumbai vs. Hakmans Financial Services & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Dcit Central Circle-6(4) M/S. Hakmans Financial R.No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Services & Securities Air India Building, Private Ltd., V. Nariman Point, 105, Sagar Shopping Mumbai- 400021 Centre, Jp Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400058 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aaach1513N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Yogesh Joijode (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5242/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 20.05.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-41/Dccc-39/It-90/12-13, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2016

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “H” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ DCIT Central Circle-6(4) M/s. Hakmans Financial R.No. 1925, 19th Floor, Services & Securities AIR India Building, Private Ltd., v. Nariman Point, 105, Sagar Shopping Mumbai- 400021 Centre, JP Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400058 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN:AAACH1513N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)…

Suresh Mulchand Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD- 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6407 & 6208/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Suresh Mulchand Shah बिधम/ Ito, Ward 19(3)(4) Matru Mandir, Mumbai Huf Vs. Shop No. A-1B, Mahavir Darshan, Saidham Complex, 26 Khambata Lane, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahs0924H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. Nos.6407 & 6208/M/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12

…rden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon’ble court also held th…