Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Anjali Pandit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…by the CIT(A) in para 2.3.15, 7.4.3, 7.4.6 and 7.4.9 of the appeal order and the assessee did not ask for any cross examination. The ld DR relied on some decisions in support of her arguments namely CIT Vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 SC, Sumati Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR 801 SC, Hersh Win Chaddha Vs DDIT(Int. Tax)135 TTJ 513, ITO Vs Shamin Bharwani 170 TTJ 238 (Mum), Shri Arvind M Kariya Vs ACIT (ITA No 7024/Mum/2010 dated 30.1.2013 , ACIT Vs Som Nath Maini(7SOT 202 Chd) and Zikrullah Chaudhary ITA No 669/PN/2012 dated 4.3.2014. The ld DR finally prayed before the bench that in view of the ratio laid down in the abov…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…hat merely because the assessee arranged paper work, the loan could not be held to be genuine. The AO relied upon decision of DCIT v. Smt. Phoolwati Devi (2009) 314 ITR AT 1(Delhi) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC). d) The finding arrived at during Survey action dated 07/07/2008 and the statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act of Sh Basant D. Jain on 09/07/2008 was duly confirmed by Sh. Nitesh Jain, partner of Moxdiam and Sh Ramesh Jain, Director of Morewel Impex Private Limited. After the survey action, statements of Sh. Nitesh Jain, Sh Basant D. Jain a…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…hat merely because the assessee arranged paper work, the loan could not be held to be genuine. The AO relied upon decision of DCIT v. Smt. Phoolwati Devi (2009) 314 ITR AT 1(Delhi) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC). d) The finding arrived at during Survey action dated 07/07/2008 and the statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act of Sh Basant D. Jain on 09/07/2008 was duly confirmed by Sh. Nitesh Jain, partner of Moxdiam and Sh Ramesh Jain, Director of Morewel Impex Private Limited. After the survey action, statements of Sh. Nitesh Jain, Sh Basant D. Jain a…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Girish J Gada, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…ny corroborative evidences also such as transportation vouchers for such huge purchases (2) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT, 214 ITR 80(SC) which clearly recognizes the principle of preponderance of probability which is relevant in the context of the statements recorded from Mukesh Choksi and group and the assessments completed by the department holding Shri Mukesh Chokshi as Hawala Operator which were confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai." II. For this and other reasons it is su…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Girish J Gada, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…ny corroborative evidences also such as transportation vouchers for such huge purchases (2) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT, 214 ITR 80(SC) which clearly recognizes the principle of preponderance of probability which is relevant in the context of the statements recorded from Mukesh Choksi and group and the assessments completed by the department holding Shri Mukesh Chokshi as Hawala Operator which were confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai." II. For this and other reasons it is su…

Raju B Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

…ome credited to the capital account on account of credits in the name of the two parties is to be treated as assessee’s own income from unexplained sources. After referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, reported in 214 ITR 801, he made the addition of Rs.2,30,25,219/- on account of credits appearing in the name 10 राजू बी दोषी Raju B Doshi ITA 1483/Mum/2011 and 06 other Group appeals of M/s Shweta Travels and M/s Shweta Enterprises which was subsequently credited to the capital account of the asseesese and as declared in the first revised return. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) be…

Raju B Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

…ome credited to the capital account on account of credits in the name of the two parties is to be treated as assessee’s own income from unexplained sources. After referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, reported in 214 ITR 801, he made the addition of Rs.2,30,25,219/- on account of credits appearing in the name 10 राजू बी दोषी Raju B Doshi ITA 1483/Mum/2011 and 06 other Group appeals of M/s Shweta Travels and M/s Shweta Enterprises which was subsequently credited to the capital account of the asseesese and as declared in the first revised return. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) be…

Raju B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

…ome credited to the capital account on account of credits in the name of the two parties is to be treated as assessee’s own income from unexplained sources. After referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, reported in 214 ITR 801, he made the addition of Rs.2,30,25,219/- on account of credits appearing in the name 10 राजू बी दोषी Raju B Doshi ITA 1483/Mum/2011 and 06 other Group appeals of M/s Shweta Travels and M/s Shweta Enterprises which was subsequently credited to the capital account of the asseesese and as declared in the first revised return. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) be…

Raju B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

…ome credited to the capital account on account of credits in the name of the two parties is to be treated as assessee’s own income from unexplained sources. After referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, reported in 214 ITR 801, he made the addition of Rs.2,30,25,219/- on account of credits appearing in the name 10 राजू बी दोषी Raju B Doshi ITA 1483/Mum/2011 and 06 other Group appeals of M/s Shweta Travels and M/s Shweta Enterprises which was subsequently credited to the capital account of the asseesese and as declared in the first revised return. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) be…

Raju B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

…ome credited to the capital account on account of credits in the name of the two parties is to be treated as assessee’s own income from unexplained sources. After referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, reported in 214 ITR 801, he made the addition of Rs.2,30,25,219/- on account of credits appearing in the name 10 राजू बी दोषी Raju B Doshi ITA 1483/Mum/2011 and 06 other Group appeals of M/s Shweta Travels and M/s Shweta Enterprises which was subsequently credited to the capital account of the asseesese and as declared in the first revised return. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) be…

Shri Raju B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

…ome credited to the capital account on account of credits in the name of the two parties is to be treated as assessee’s own income from unexplained sources. After referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, reported in 214 ITR 801, he made the addition of Rs.2,30,25,219/- on account of credits appearing in the name 10 राजू बी दोषी Raju B Doshi ITA 1483/Mum/2011 and 06 other Group appeals of M/s Shweta Travels and M/s Shweta Enterprises which was subsequently credited to the capital account of the asseesese and as declared in the first revised return. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) be…

Ecofriendly Hotels India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10, Mumbai

…efore, the courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities.Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece or evidence." Similarly,the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided the matter of Sumati Dayal(214 ITR 801),after considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities.In the matter of L.N.Dalmia the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (207 ITR 89)had considered the surrounding circumstances to decide the issue. In the case under consideration,what the AO and the FAA have done is that instead of putting on blinkers,while look…

Prashant Toraskar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Prashant Toraskar Asst. Cit-25(1), बनाम/ 101, 1St Floor, Sunflower Chs, Mumbai St. Francis Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt 5707 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tarun Ghia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 09.6.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 07.3.2013. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By One Day. The Same Is Explained By Way Of An Affidavit Dated 11.4.2016 By The Appellant As Caused Under The Bona Fide Impression Of Having Been Filed In Time; He Being Engaged In Identifying A Counsel For Advice & Representation Before The Tribunal And, Thus, In Filing The Appeal, Resulting In It Being

…med, placing reliance on the decisions in the following cases, holding the burden of proof to be on the assessee, and in the absence of an explanation no onus lay on the Revenue to show if the credit is from a particular source: 1) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); 2) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938(SC); 3) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); 4) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); 3 Prashant Toraskar vs. Asst. CIT 5) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and 6) A. Govindarjulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). Aggrieved,…

Vijay Jayantilal Choksi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvijay Jayantlal Choksi, 3 Satyam Building, 1St Floor, Juhutara Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 049 Pan:Aajpc 7858B ... Appellant Vs.

…CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194(SC) (c) CIT vs. Ganapati Mudaliar, 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) CIT vs. M.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumat Dayal Vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) In view of the facts and circumstances and various court decisions on this issue, it is held that the appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of unsecured loans, therefore, the addition made by the A.O is upheld and ground of appeal is dismissed.” 4 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) -18, Mumba…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Ziauddin A. Siddique, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negiita Nos 5182 & 5183/Mum/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Acit Cen Cir. 24 & 26 Shri Ziauddin A Siddique Mumbai. 401, Alice Villa, Vs. Opp Almedia Park, Road No.5, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan Ahlps0554P (Appellant) Respondent)

…staff of the broker, the explanation is unacceptable and raises doubts about the genuineness of the purchase transactions of the shares from the broker. The learned CIT-DR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal [214 ITR 801] and requested us to apply the test of human probability against the assessee. Referring to the impugned order of the CIT(A), the CIT-DR submitted that the jurisdictional High Court judgements in the case of Jamnadevi Agarwal [328 ITR 656] was heavily relied for granting relief to the assessee. In this regard, the CIT-DR is of the opinion that th…

K.B. J Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…g these facts, we find that the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is perverse. The assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the cash credit…… " 25. Following dicta of the apex Court judgment in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) was heavily relied upon by the Revenue : "It is no doubt true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as Income, the burden lies upon the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within the exemption…