Tolaram Daga v. CIT

59 ITR 632High Court1966#1937 most cited

What is Tolaram Daga v. CIT authority for?

An assessee claiming cash credits or loans has the primary burden to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The judgment also addresses the validity of rejecting books of accounts during assessment.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tolaram Daga v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained loans · burden of proof · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · rejection of books of account · Section 133(6) · identity of creditor

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 12AASection 131

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 106source of sourcesection 5(2)share capital and share premiumcreditworthiness of the creditorsection 250(4)share application moneysection 34addition under section 68rule 46aadmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing Tolaram Daga v. CIT

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 926/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…. (96 taxmann.com 403) (SC)  CIT-1 vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs.…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 925/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…. (96 taxmann.com 403) (SC)  CIT-1 vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs.…

Bipin Agarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 924/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…. (96 taxmann.com 403) (SC)  CIT-1 vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs.…

Nimbus Multicommodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Nimbus Multicommodity Brokers Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…. (96 taxmann.com 403) (SC)  CIT-1 vs. Apex Therm Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (42 taxmann.com 473) (Guj.)  Anand Prakash Agarwal vd. ACIT 6 DTR 191 (All.)  CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel 147 Taxman 448 (All.)  S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 1TR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)  ACIT(Inv.) vs. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries 1 MTC 780  ITO vs. M.S. Advance (P.) Ltd. 188 Taxation 181 (Trib.)  Vinod Kumar Bhandari vs. ACIT 174 Taxation 49 (Trib.)  Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. 154 ITR 244/22  CIT vs.…

Swarn Gems P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133(6)Section 68

…he creditors and the source of the fund received. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corpn. 103 ITR 344 (Patna) iv) Tola Ram Daga 59 ITR 632 (Asm) v) Suresh Kalmadi 32 TTJ 300 (Pune Tri.) vi) DCIT vs. Anand Prakash Goenka 52 ITD 73 (Cal) vii) ACIT vs. Mohanlal Mishrilal & Sons 52 TTJ 9 (Indore) viii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141 ix) CIT vs. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 x) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) xi) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 94 ITR 680 (Bom…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…d that an assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of a capital contribution but the origin of origin and source of source as well. That Hon'ble High Court of Assam in Tolaram Daga vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) in para 6 of the judgment observed, the mere fact that the creditor happens to be wife of the partner of the assessee firm does not ipso facto make the assessee come into the knowledge of (he sources from which the money was realized. It was further observed in para 7 of the judgment, 'to require the firm or partner thereof to adduce ITA…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…d that an assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of a capital contribution but the origin of origin and source of source as well. That Hon'ble High Court of Assam in Tolaram Daga vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) in para 6 of the judgment observed, the mere fact that the creditor happens to be wife of the partner of the assessee firm does not ipso facto make the assessee come into the knowledge of (he sources from which the money was realized. It was further observed in para 7 of the judgment, 'to require the firm or partner thereof to adduce ITA…

Mr. Pramod Kumar Khandelwal, Agra vs. Dy.C.I.T.-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 201/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

…(Hon’ble Allahabad High Court) c) CIT Vs Prayag Wines (2014) 49 taxmann.com 528 (Hon’ble Allahabad High Court) d) DCIT Lucknow Vs. Hanuman Sugar (Khandsari) Mills Pvt.Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 53 (Hon’ble Allahabad High Court) e) Tolaram Daga Vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Hon’ble Assam High Court) f) ACIT Vs. S.K. Sharma Contractor, New Delhi g) ACIT Vs. ITD Cementation India Ltd. (2013) 36 taxmann.com 74 (Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench`I’) h) Agarwal Transport Service Vs. DCIT I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 21 (2017) 88 taxmann.com 660 (Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench) i) CIT Vs.Suresh Kumar Bajoria (2009) 34 SOT 29 (Hon…

Mr. Pramod Kumar Khandelwal, Agra vs. Dy.C.I.T.-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 200/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

…(Hon’ble Allahabad High Court) c) CIT Vs Prayag Wines (2014) 49 taxmann.com 528 (Hon’ble Allahabad High Court) d) DCIT Lucknow Vs. Hanuman Sugar (Khandsari) Mills Pvt.Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 53 (Hon’ble Allahabad High Court) e) Tolaram Daga Vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Hon’ble Assam High Court) f) ACIT Vs. S.K. Sharma Contractor, New Delhi g) ACIT Vs. ITD Cementation India Ltd. (2013) 36 taxmann.com 74 (Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench`I’) h) Agarwal Transport Service Vs. DCIT I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 21 (2017) 88 taxmann.com 660 (Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench) i) CIT Vs.Suresh Kumar Bajoria (2009) 34 SOT 29 (Hon…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. Tarun Devcon Private Limited, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

ITA 18/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…bly CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC); CIT vs. Metachem Inds. [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP); Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gau); Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Patna); and Tolaram Daga vs. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Ass). The Revenue challenges their deletion before us. 3. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. 3.1 Our first observation in the matter is that the AO has not doubted either the genuineness (of the credits) or the identity of the creditors, but only their creditworthiness in view of the gross mismatch between their re…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Almega Paints Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-

ITA 6267/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Almega Paints Pvt. Ltd., Tax - 15(1)(1), B-24, Minerva Industrial Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Estate, Off P.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mulund (W), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca3698N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 143Section 68

…rious High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal: (i) Anand Prakash Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 6 DTR 191 (All.) (ii) CIT v. Jauharimal Goel [ 2005] 147 Taxman 448 (All.) (iii) S. Hastimal v. CIT [ 1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) (iv) Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1996] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) (v) CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [ 1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (vi) Sarogi Credit Corpn. V. CIT [ 1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (vii) CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. [ 1986] 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC) (viii) Asstt. CIT (Investigation ) v. Shree Ram Hard Coke & Allied Industries [ 2003] 1 MTC 780 (ix) ITO v. M.S. Advance (P) Ltd. [ 2005] 188 Taxation…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…been made in the following cases.  CIT v Creative World Telefilms Ltd (333 ITR 100) (Jurisdictional Bombay High Court)  CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. ITA No.911/2010 – Del HC  S. Hastimal v. CIT[1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.)  Tolaram Daga v. CIT[1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam)  CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) 38 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 2.37 We also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. K.Noorjahan (237 ITR 570) (SC) to bring home the point that every case of cash credit does not h…

I.T.O. - 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Leena Haresh Harde, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6429/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 25(2)(5) V. Smt Leena Haresh Harde Room No. 506, C-10, 5Th Floor 502, 5Th Floor, Padmawati Palace Pratyakshakar Bhavan Nanda Patkar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Pan: Aaxph1737Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Michael Jerald

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 68

…erefore even the 2nd proviso to section 68 of the Act is not applicable to the present case to prove the source of source of funds obtained. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - (a) S. Hastimal v. CIT [49 ITR 273(Mad HC)] (b) Tolaram Daga v. CIT [59 ITR 632 (Gauhati HC)] (c) Nemichand Kothari v. CIT [264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC)] (d) Murlidhar Lahorimal v. CIT [280 ITR 512 (Guj HC)] 10 Smt Leena Haresh Harde 12. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no cogent material or evidence has been brought on record to indicate that the assessee's own unaccounted money has been received back under the…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…that the remittances should have been from the fund which has already suffered tax. It is noteworthy that the Ld. A.O has not rejected the books of accounts and its extracts produced before him. In such situation as held in the case of Tolaram Daga V/s CIT 59 ITR 632 such unchallenged account books are prima facie proof ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari of the correctness of the entries made therein. It is also brought to our notice that during the survey proceedings hundis of Rs.23.65 crores were found out of which hundis of Rs.7 crores were in the name of the assessee and hundis…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…that the remittances should have been from the fund which has already suffered tax. It is noteworthy that the Ld. A.O has not rejected the books of accounts and its extracts produced before him. In such situation as held in the case of Tolaram Daga V/s CIT 59 ITR 632 such unchallenged account books are prima facie proof ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari of the correctness of the entries made therein. It is also brought to our notice that during the survey proceedings hundis of Rs.23.65 crores were found out of which hundis of Rs.7 crores were in the name of the assessee and hundis…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…that the remittances should have been from the fund which has already suffered tax. It is noteworthy that the Ld. A.O has not rejected the books of accounts and its extracts produced before him. In such situation as held in the case of Tolaram Daga V/s CIT 59 ITR 632 such unchallenged account books are prima facie proof ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari of the correctness of the entries made therein. It is also brought to our notice that during the survey proceedings hundis of Rs.23.65 crores were found out of which hundis of Rs.7 crores were in the name of the assessee and hundis…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Guwahati vs. Prag Raj Singla, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Sandip Sengupta, JCIT DRFor Respondent: Shri B. L. Purohit FCA & Shri Subash Purohit, FCA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…g Raj Singla Assessment Year:2013-14 loan transaction, the books of account of the Assessee have been accepted in to-to and when this has been done, the Ld. Counsel relied on the jurisdictional High Court's judgement in the case of Tolaram Daga Vs. CIT (1965) 59 ITR 632 (Gauhati) is quite relevant and applicable. In this judgment the Hon’ble Court has held as under:- "It would appear that the accounts of the firm which had been produced in the case had been accepted and acted upon by the Department and no serious challenge had been made to their genuineness or that they were kept regularly in the course of busin…

Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6015/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Patna HC) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254(Gau) (vi) S. Hastimal vs CIT 49 ITR 272 (vii) CIT vs PithampurConzima (P) Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court (viii) TolaramDaga's case [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) 11. In reply the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus under section 68 of the Act and the AO and the CIT(A) were justified in making the additions. The Ld. DR submitted that AO and CIT(A) have examined each of the creditor and has recor…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5970/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Patna HC) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254(Gau) (vi) S. Hastimal vs CIT 49 ITR 272 (vii) CIT vs PithampurConzima (P) Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court (viii) TolaramDaga's case [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) 11. In reply the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus under section 68 of the Act and the AO and the CIT(A) were justified in making the additions. The Ld. DR submitted that AO and CIT(A) have examined each of the creditor and has recor…

M/S.Geetanjali Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 782/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…A.R. also argued that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source of investment as has been held in the following cases: 1. PCIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.819 of 2015(Bom) 2. S. Hastimal Vs. CIT 49 ITR 273(Mad) 3. Tolaram Daga vs. CIT 59 ITR 632(Assam) 49 ITA No.782/M/2019 & ITA No.1969/M/2019 M/s. Geetanjali Space Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. A.R. further contended that proviso to section 68 as introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2013 is not applicable retrospectively and thus does not apply to the year under consideration as has been held in the following decisions namely Principal Commr. Of Income Tax Vs. A…