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

Shakeeluddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Thane

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

ITA 5118/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5118 To 5120/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Shri Shakeeluddin Siddiqui Ito-2(4), Room No. 29, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, 603, Gulmohar Co-Op. Hsg. Society, बनाम/ Saraswati Tower, Naya Nagar, Ashar I. T. Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Ganga Complex, 60 Feet Road, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400 604 Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane-400 107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajwps 5271 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 02.05.2017 & Pertain To The Aforesaid Three Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 148

…vidence 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 Shri Shakeeluddin Siddiqui vs. ITO 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 H…

Madhu Banwarilal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2935/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2935/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Smt. Madhu Banwarilal Agarwal Ito, Ward-32(2)(3), Prop. M/S. Hindustan Metal Forge, Mumbai बनाम/ 502, 5Th Floor, B-Wing, Sheetal Chs, Vs. Saptarshi Sankal, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400 068 "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 : Shri Haresh P. Shah

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Haresh P. Shah
Section 133(6)Section 145(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. 6 Smt. Madhu Banwarilal Agarwal…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- 9 Startech Engineers 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…

The Income Tax Office, Ward-1(1), Junagadh vs. M/S. Shreenathji Builders, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, and so is the cross-objection filed by the assessee

ITA 47/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleting the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- made on account of on money received by on sale of lands. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in not applying the ratio of the Hon’ble SC given in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC)” 3. The grievances raised by the assessee are also connected with the above grievances raised by the Assessing Officer, and are, therefore, required to be taken up together. These grievances are as follows:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot erred on facts and in law in confirming addition to the extent of Rs.…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.K.Transport & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Korba(Cg)

In the result, all appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 242/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…has concluded that in this case the appellant has failed to discharge its onus in proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. i) ClTv. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 CIT v. Durgaprasad More (82 ITR 540) ) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) iv) NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 1019/2011) dtd. 22.11. 2013: v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Del); vii) Bharti Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.); viii) Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (129 Taxman 601 Cal.); ITA Nos.236 to 242/RPR/2014 CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/20…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.K.Transport & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Korba(Cg)

In the result, all appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 238/BIL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…has concluded that in this case the appellant has failed to discharge its onus in proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. i) ClTv. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 CIT v. Durgaprasad More (82 ITR 540) ) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) iv) NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 1019/2011) dtd. 22.11. 2013: v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Del); vii) Bharti Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.); viii) Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (129 Taxman 601 Cal.); ITA Nos.236 to 242/RPR/2014 CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/20…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.K.Transport & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Korba(Cg)

In the result, all appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 237/BIL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…has concluded that in this case the appellant has failed to discharge its onus in proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. i) ClTv. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 CIT v. Durgaprasad More (82 ITR 540) ) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) iv) NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 1019/2011) dtd. 22.11. 2013: v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Del); vii) Bharti Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.); viii) Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (129 Taxman 601 Cal.); ITA Nos.236 to 242/RPR/2014 CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/20…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.K.Transport & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Korba(Cg)

In the result, all appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 236/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 145Section 153ASection 68

…has concluded that in this case the appellant has failed to discharge its onus in proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. i) ClTv. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 CIT v. Durgaprasad More (82 ITR 540) ) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) iv) NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO. 1019/2011) dtd. 22.11. 2013: v) Nova Promoters & Finlease (342 ITR 169); vi) CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407 (Del); vii) Bharti Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal.); viii) Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (129 Taxman 601 Cal.); ITA Nos.236 to 242/RPR/2014 CO Nos.11 to 17/RPR/20…

DCIT, 1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Smt Vimlesh Kumar Singh, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 21/BIL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Shital Verma, DR
Section 10(38)

…and considering the documentary evidences on record, the share transactions cannot be considered as ingenuine/sham and, therefore, the sale proceeds of such share transactions cannot be taxed under s. 68.—Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) distinguished.” 15. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ravindra Sanghai (HUF), ITA No.698//Kol/2010, vide order dated 22.05.2012,wherein the shares of Multiplus Resources Ltd. in question for earning of Long Term Capital Gain and shares he…

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Art Housing P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 522/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.522/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-1(1)(1), M/S. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. 534, Aayakar Bhawan, Block No. 302, Mehta Business बनाम/ M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Centre, Khaitan Chambers, Vs. 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahca 6007 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Dharan Gandhi & Shri Vishesh Sangoi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 11.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 26.01.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I. "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Directing The Deletion Of The Sum Brought To Tax By The 2 Ito Vs. M/S. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. Ao As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Moneys Credited In The Books As Share Application Money Rs.45,00,000?"

For Appellant: Ms. N. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri Dharan Gandhi &
Section 68

…d the assessee has miserably failed to dislodge the finding of the Revenue that these companies are only operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain to provide bogus accommodation entries. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. 10 ITO vs. M/s. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), the Revenue authorities are not supposed to put on blinkers but have to look into the surrounding circumstances. The clear factual evidence that these bogus companies of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and his group established to provide bogus accommodation…

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3443/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…f Rs.2,00,000/- has been shown for eight months which is more than what was shown in the earlier years comprising of full 12 months. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, when tested on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801), this evidence is not found credible. 4.8.3 As regards the entry in the column in respect of the name of the cultivator being 'self cultivated', the Id. AR in the rejoinder submitted that 'the Patwari only sees at the time of inspection whether land is cultivated or not and he does not check the fact that the land is cultivated by some other per…

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3442/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…f Rs.2,00,000/- has been shown for eight months which is more than what was shown in the earlier years comprising of full 12 months. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, when tested on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801), this evidence is not found credible. 4.8.3 As regards the entry in the column in respect of the name of the cultivator being 'self cultivated', the Id. AR in the rejoinder submitted that 'the Patwari only sees at the time of inspection whether land is cultivated or not and he does not check the fact that the land is cultivated by some other per…

Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3441/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…f Rs.2,00,000/- has been shown for eight months which is more than what was shown in the earlier years comprising of full 12 months. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, when tested on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801), this evidence is not found credible. 4.8.3 As regards the entry in the column in respect of the name of the cultivator being 'self cultivated', the Id. AR in the rejoinder submitted that 'the Patwari only sees at the time of inspection whether land is cultivated or not and he does not check the fact that the land is cultivated by some other per…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ctual date noted hereinabove that the assessee has entered into dubious transaction meant to reflect its undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. In such circumstances, as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), the Revenue authorities are not supposed to put on blinkers but had to look into the surrounding circumstances and the contemporaneous evidence. This proposition also draws support from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT o…

Haresh K. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4975/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4975/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Haresh K. Sanghvi Ito-17(1)(5), Prop. M/S. Mahavir Metal Syndicate Room No. 117, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 35/37, Bapu Khote Lane, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Vs. Gulal Wadi, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajvps 5483 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Praful L. Vora ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Praful L. VoraFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 142(1)Section 147

…ken 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. 14. In these circumstances learned…

Sangeeta Ghanshyam Patel, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4583/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4583, 4584 & 4585/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sangeeta Ghanshyam Patel Acit-32(3), बनाम/ C-11, 1St Floor, Bkc, 1211 C, National Park View, Paheja Estate, Borivali, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 066 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Agtpp 4539 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Darshan Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since The Issues Are Common, These Appeals Were Heard Together & They Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya &For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 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. Sangeeta Ghanshyam Patel vs. ACIT 1…

Kajal Kumar Roy, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

Section 131Section 68

…r section 68 of the Act. This is the settled position of law. In spite of the furnishing of various documents, the appellant cannot be said to have established the capacity of the creditors to lend. Further, it was held in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year it may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year if the explanation offered by assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In that…

Shri Ismat Pasha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-54(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1418/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble]

Section 250

…s has not appeared in his balance sheet and return of income. (d) The donor of the assessee was not produced before the Assessing Officer. 4.1. The ld. CIT(A), applied the decision in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540. 5. The brother of the assessee has given a declaration that he has never been called by the Assessing Officer and that the cash gifts were given over the period of time from 03/05/2007 to 27/07/2007. In our view, a gift from a brother, who has no children and has agricultural income, should be…

Shri Ismat Pasha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-54(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1417/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble]

Section 250

…s has not appeared in his balance sheet and return of income. (d) The donor of the assessee was not produced before the Assessing Officer. 4.1. The ld. CIT(A), applied the decision in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540. 5. The brother of the assessee has given a declaration that he has never been called by the Assessing Officer and that the cash gifts were given over the period of time from 03/05/2007 to 27/07/2007. In our view, a gift from a brother, who has no children and has agricultural income, should be…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…t case addition is based on those material copies of which have not been provided.’’ 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and filed following case laws. 1. CIT vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC) 2. Sumit Dayal vs CIT , 214 ITR 801 (SC) 3. C. Vasantlal & Co. vs CIT, 45 ITR 206 (SC) 4. Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral vs CIT,327 ITR 424 (P&H) 5. B Kishore Kumar vs DCIT , 273 CTR 468 (Mad.) 6. B. Kisshore Kumar vs DCIT , 62 Taxm. Com 215 (SC) 7. CIT vs P.M. Aboobacker, 45Taxm (Ker.) 36 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 8. Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v…