Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801Supreme Court of India1995#12 most cited

What is Sumati Dayal v. CIT authority for?

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

1,967

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sumati Dayal v CIT · Section 68 · human probabilities · genuineness of transaction · true nature of transaction · accommodation entry · bogus capital gains · penny stock · look behind apparent form · preponderance of probability · colourable device · unexplained loans

Also reported as

80 Taxmann 89125 CTR 124

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingcolourable devicepreponderance of probabilitybogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatoraddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionaccommodation entryshare application money

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…ancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 3…

Ramniklal Brothers, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7002/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainramniklal Brothers, Pehlaj Kunj Lohar Ali, ……………. Appellant Thane, Maharashtra-400601 Pan-Aaffr8718P V/S

For Appellant: Shri Subodh L. RatnaparthiFor Respondent: Shri N. Hemalatha-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…evidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). In the present case, the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and, thus, bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of Hon’ble Apex Court decisions. 9. I fu…

ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Thakor Electronic Ltd., Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6427/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6427/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit, Circle-1, M/S. Thakor Electronics Ltd. 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Plot No. P-1, P-3, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W)-421 301 Shree Rajlaxmi Hi-Tech Textile Vs. Park, Bhiwandi, Nashik Bypass Road, Sonale, Bhiwandi-421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct 4323 M (Revenue) (Assessee) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6484 & 6485/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Thakor Electronics Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle-1, Plot No. P-1, P-3, 1St Floor, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, बनाम/ Shree Rajlaxmi Hi-Tech Textile Park, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W)-421 301 Vs. Bhiwandi, Nashik Bypass Road, Sonale, Bhiwandi-421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct 4323 M (Assessee) (Revenue) : Revenue By : Shri V. Justin Assessee By : Shri Tanjil Padvekar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.04.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue For Assessment Years 2009-10 & Appeal By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arising Out Of The M/S. Thakor Electronics Ltd. Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For These Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Tanjil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 12. In these circumstances learned…

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Steamline Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 5842/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.5842 & 5843/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12) Dy. Cit-8(2)(2), M/S. Steamline Industries Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 615, M. K. Road, 178/26, Chatrabhuj Khetashi, Mumbai-400 020 Sant Tukaram Road, Masjid Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 7421 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. C. Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.04.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals By The Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For The Concerned Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Jain
Section 114Section 131Section 147

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 10. In these circumstances learned…

Emson Tools Mfg Corp Ltd, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaemson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T.,(Cc-I), D-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaace3698M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit GargFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Emson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T.,(CC-I), D-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: AAACE3698M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sarabjit Garg Respondent by : Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT Date of hearing :30.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement :27.04.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as (‘Ld.…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 7 Gautam Tube Corporation ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 3…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 7 Gautam Tube Corporation ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 3…

Sh. Abhimanyu Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kuldip SinghFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…nse at the time of registration. 9.2 Ld. DR further placed reliance on the theory of preponderance of human probability as pronounced by the Hon. Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) is of utmost importance. In this cases where it has been established that the source company is a mere 'paper company' solely engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries, the presumption on the basis of human probability has also rightly been referred by the assessing officers to fortify their findings. Hon. Supreme Court in C…

DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan vs. Jayprakash N Lakhani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 924/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Shri Jayprakash N Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs. Lakhani, F-212, Udyog Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Vihar, Near Vithal Wadi, Plaza, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar-421003 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W),- 421301 Pan No. Aakpl5145M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Shri Jayprakash N of Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs. Lakhani, F-212, Udyog Kalyan, 2nd floor, Mohan Vihar, Near Vithal Wadi, Plaza, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar-421003 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W),- 421301 PAN No. AAKPL5145M Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. Arju Garodia, DR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 21/03/2018 Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The re…

The Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Rakesh Saraogi & Soni (HUF), Raipur (Cg)

ITA 93/BIL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. Nos: 93 to 99/RPR/2014 C.O. Nos. 12 to 18/RPR/2014 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dy. Commissioner of V/S Rakesh Saraogi & Sons Income-tax 1(1), Raipur (HUF) C/o. subham Kroti, Main Road Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G) PAN No. AACHR6854D Rakesh Saraogi & Sons V/S (HUF) C/o. subham Kroti, Dy. Commissioner of Main Road Shankar Income-tax 1(1), Raipur Nagar, Raipur (C.G) PAN No. AACHR6854D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of V/S Smt. Babita Saraogi C/o. Income…

Ansh Merchandise P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6458/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private Dcit 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 V. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena ,CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private DCIT 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 v. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABCN8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri. Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Shri. R.P Meena ,CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख /…

M/S. Khaitan Trade Holdings Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) I.T.A. No. 2179/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 250

…k Exchange itself has confirmed that the transactions in question, the loss cannot be disallowed. The Assessing Officer applied the theory of human probabilities and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), and made the disallowance. 2.1. On appeal the ld. First Appellate Authority, upheld this order of the Assessing Officer. He held that human error cannot occur on all occasions. He observed that the derivative transactions took place through a broker but on different dates. He also applie…

Chanchal Kumar Ash, North 24 Parganas vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 774/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Chanchal Kumar Ash -Vs- Dcit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Acxpa 6531 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Neogi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)(d)Section 68

…ions. With regard to the persons who were not summoned or were absent, the ld AO observed that the same ratio would be applied keeping in view the judgment in the case of Durga Prasad More vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 (SC) where in it was stated that an evidence have to be judged by applying the test of human probabilities and an inference is to be drawn on the basis of circumstance available on record. Accordingly, the ld AO added the entire loan amount of Rs 11,37,227/- as bogus as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The assessee filed additional…

Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4086 To 4088/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Mr. Chirag Rajendra Shah Ito, Ward 24(1)(4), 502, 5Th Floor, C-13, D-305, Siddhi Vinayak Tower, बनाम/ Off Tank Road, Orlem, Malad, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-64 Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afxps 7904 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. K. Sharma & Ms. Taneshka Sharma ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 19. In these circumstances learned…

Simplex Metal & Alloys, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 222/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.222/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Simplex Metal & Alloys Ito-19(3)(3) Shop No. 25, Ground Floor, Room No. 202, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Harharwala Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 Vs. Ardeshir Dady Street, S.V.P. Road, Near Alankar Cinema, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfs 5871 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 28.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 10.10.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Issue Raised Relates To The Validity Of Reopening & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,78,911/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 13. In these circumstances learned…

M. B. Services, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 20/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 20/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M. B. Services Ito, Ward 26(2)(2), Siddha Sadab, 2Nd Floor, C/11, 7Th Floor, बनाम/ Flat No. 9-10, Plot No. 123A, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Sion Matunga Scheme Road No. 24A, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Sion (West), Mumbai-400 022 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 27.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 27.10.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining 100% Of The Addition Amounting To Rs.10,25,048/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 13. In these circumstances learned…

Mircon Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 47/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 47 & 48/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Mircon Infrastructure Private Limited Ito, Ward 10(2)(4), 505/506, Shalimar Morya Park, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ New Lind Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm 1309 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 101Section 106Section 131

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 12. In these circumstances learned…

Vishal Tube Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6527/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6527/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vishal Tube Industries Ito-19(3)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Badrika Ashram Building, बनाम/ Ground Floor, 92, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 Nanubhai Desai Road, Vs. Dhetwadi Main Road, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfv 5562 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 26.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 25.09.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Issue Raised Relates To The Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment & Addition @ 12.50% Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 15. In these circumstances learned…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…e assessee were realized. The AO also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DOT V/s Phoolwati Devi (2009) 314 ITR AT I (Delhi) and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suman Dayal V/s CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC). Accordingly, the AO stood by the assessment order. The AO further observed that if at all the purchases were considered to have been made from any other party, the same would have been sourced out of undisclosed income of the assessee, in which case the provisions of sec. 69C of the Act would be attracted. Even though the assessee furnished…

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Parth Traders, Thane

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and assessee's cross objection are dismissed and the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4735/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4735/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 2(4) M/S. Parth Traders Room No. 12, 6Th Floor, 63, Mira Co-Op. Hsg. Society, बनाम/ Ashar It Park, Wagle Indl. Estate, Near Asmita Super Market, Vs. Road No.16Z, Thane-400 604 Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane-401 107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabfp 4130 F (Revenue) (Assessee) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5211/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & ""या"ेपक सं./Co No. 157/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4735/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ M/S. Parth Traders Ito, Ward 2(4) Thane-401 107 Thane-400 604 Vs. (Assessee) (Revenue) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Swarop ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. P. Mehta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 22.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee & Cross Objection By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 11.06.2015 & Pertain To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2 M/S. Parth Traders 2. In The Revenues Appeal, The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja SwaropFor Respondent: Shri G. P. Mehta
Section 133(6)

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. In this factual background, the as…