Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

37 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1959#112 most cited

What is Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT authority for?

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

567

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT · suspicion not proof · no addition on surmises · conjectures and suspicion · burden of proof income tax · Section 68 cash credits · Section 132(4) statement · assessment without evidence · Section 37(1) business expenditure · genuineness of transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 148Section 153ASection 69C

Issues it is cited on

price riggingdumb documentssection 132(4a)statement under section 132(4)bogus long term capital gainsection 292cretracted statementloose paperson-moneybogus ltcgsection 132(4)penny stock

Judgments citing Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 13.47. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that no addition can be made taking into acc…

M/S Ganesh Builders, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…R 619) Del. HC. Further, for the proposition that presumption howsoever strong cannot take place of evidence, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments namely, Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1954) (26 ITR 775) (SC), Umacharan Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) and CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel, (P&H HC) 224 ITR 180. 18.6 It was further submitted that out of the 4 plots numbered 10, 11, 168 and 169 of Kashmiri lal which formed the base for framing assessment, only 3 plots were included in the list of 54 plots on which the rate of Rs. 7000 was applied by the Ld. AO. Plot No. 168 was not considered for…

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…R 619) Del. HC. Further, for the proposition that presumption howsoever strong cannot take place of evidence, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments namely, Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1954) (26 ITR 775) (SC), Umacharan Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) and CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel, (P&H HC) 224 ITR 180. 18.6 It was further submitted that out of the 4 plots numbered 10, 11, 168 and 169 of Kashmiri lal which formed the base for framing assessment, only 3 plots were included in the list of 54 plots on which the rate of Rs. 7000 was applied by the Ld. AO. Plot No. 168 was not considered for…

Nawal Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4419/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4419/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2014-15) ITO,Ward-24(3)(1), NawalBasudeoAgarwal, Vs. Room.no.415,4 th Floor, 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Piramal chambers, Manish Nagar, Lalbaug, J.P.Road, Andheri (W), Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. PAN/GIR No. AABPA1746L (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by Shri.Vimal Punmiya.AR Revenue by Shri.Ashish Kumar.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 10.05.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADA…

Rohit Devendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-33(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3704/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

…in the eyes of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V /s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). Therefore, we find that onus as cast upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record, any cogent material to sustain those additions, could not be discharged by the revenue. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without esta…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vijay Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…by any unaccounted assets and investments unearthed during the course of search, but solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. This principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). Further, the assessee has brought on record various reasons to prove that the alleged scribbling pad is part of purported statement and declaration obtained by the search team during the course of search, but it is not a cash book maintained by the assessee to record unaccounted cash introduction. Had it been the case of the AO that the alleg…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…by any unaccounted assets and investments unearthed during the course of search, but solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. This principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). Further, the assessee has brought on record various reasons to prove that the alleged scribbling pad is part of purported statement and declaration obtained by the search team during the course of search, but it is not a cash book maintained by the assessee to record unaccounted cash introduction. Had it been the case of the AO that the alleg…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…by any unaccounted assets and investments unearthed during the course of search, but solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. This principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). Further, the assessee has brought on record various reasons to prove that the alleged scribbling pad is part of purported statement and declaration obtained by the search team during the course of search, but it is not a cash book maintained by the assessee to record unaccounted cash introduction. Had it been the case of the AO that the alleg…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…TR 775 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Page 102 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Bansal Strips (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2006), 99 ITD 177 Delhi • CBI vs V C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 • Common Cause (A registered society) and others vs Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505 of 2015 (SC) [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) • M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (Civil Appeal No 4228 of 2006 dates 02-09-2015) wherein held that order bec…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…TR 775 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Page 102 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Bansal Strips (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2006), 99 ITD 177 Delhi • CBI vs V C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 • Common Cause (A registered society) and others vs Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505 of 2015 (SC) [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) • M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (Civil Appeal No 4228 of 2006 dates 02-09-2015) wherein held that order bec…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…TR 775 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Page 102 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Bansal Strips (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2006), 99 ITD 177 Delhi • CBI vs V C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 • Common Cause (A registered society) and others vs Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505 of 2015 (SC) [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) • M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (Civil Appeal No 4228 of 2006 dates 02-09-2015) wherein held that order bec…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…TR 775 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Page 102 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Bansal Strips (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2006), 99 ITD 177 Delhi • CBI vs V C Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 • Common Cause (A registered society) and others vs Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505 of 2015 (SC) [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) • M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (Civil Appeal No 4228 of 2006 dates 02-09-2015) wherein held that order bec…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…n grounds of suspicion and conjectures. The same therefore deserves to be quashed. It is settled position of law that suspicion and doubt however strong cannot take the place of evidence. Following case laws are quoted in support – a) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros 37 ITR 271 b) CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 ( P&H) 36 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni c) CIT Vs Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 d) Lal chand Bhagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 e) State Vs Guljari lal Tondan AIR 1979 (SC) f) J A Naidoo Vs State of Maharastra AIR 1979 SC 1537 g) Krishnand Vs State of MP AIR 197…

Natasha Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1792/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatr Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)Section 69

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER R Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Natasha Kohli, Vs ACIT, Central Circle-8, 15, Amrita Sher Gill Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110003. PAN- AGFPK1713P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ved Jain, Adv.; & Assessee represented by Ms. Supriya Mehta, CA Department represented by Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 12.02.2024 Date of pronouncement 29.02.2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of…

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…C), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewala v. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.). These principles enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy.CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…e and material at all. There must be something more than suspicion to support the assessment. Case Laws relied upon; Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 1954, 26 ITR 775 (SC).The same principle is also reiterated in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros, vs CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC). It was held that a suspicion however, strong may not take the place of proof. The conclusion which are based on surmises and conjectures, cannot take the place of proof. Case relied upon: • CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda (SC) dated 28.03.2018 : As per the principles of natural justice, the AO has to provide the evidence to the assessee & grant opport…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014 2. K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); 3. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); 4. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.', (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); 5. Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT', (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Income assessed without evidence is bad-in-law. Income assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified. 1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.) 2. VINOD SOLANKI VS. UOI (233) ELT 157 (S.C.) 3. CIT V. KASHIRAM TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD [2006]284 ITR 61 (GUJ)- 4. SARASWATHI OIL TRADERS V. CIT [2000] 254 ITR 259 (SC) Income canno…

Mohd Hussain Kagdi, Ratlam vs. The It&Tp, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 120/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Mohd. Hussain Kagdi, Ito (I.T. & T.P.), 15, Tripoliya Gate, Bhopal बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Atzpk 4811 B Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 254(2)Section 69Section 69A

…ition but it is a trite that no addition can be made on mere suspicion or presumption as held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohd. Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Umacharan Shaw & Bros. Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). Page 6 of 10 Mohd. Hussain Kagdi , Ratlam vs. ITO (IT & TP), Bhopal I.T.A.No. 120/Ind/2021 – A.Y. 2011-12 8. Per contra, Ld. DR for Revenue submitted that the assessee has purchased the impugned land through a Registered-Deed and not by sale- agreement on 04.02.2011 and still it is being claimed that the payments were made through post-…

The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara vs. M/S. Aarya Developers, Vadodara

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

ITA 973/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner V/S M/s. Aarya Developers of Income-tax Twin Tower, Near FGI, Central Circle-3, 603, 6th Opp. Vecenza Highland, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Sevasi, Gotri, Vadodara Race Course Circle, Vadodara - 390007 PAN NO. : AARFA5865G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR Respondent by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin S Shah, A.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 22 -11-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12 -01-2024 PER T.R.…

Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2398/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, Manishnagar, G- Block,Bkc, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa1748E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

…question of law, arises for adjudication.— C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT (.1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker)) and Mukand Singh vs. Sales Tax Tribunal (1998) 107 STC 300 (Punjab) relied on; Umacharan Shaw &Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Applied; Jaspal Singh vs. CIT (2006) 205 CTR (P & H) 624 distinguished” 26. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 had the occasion to consider a similar issue which was wherein the assessment was framed on the strength of the statement of a broker. The relevant part reads as under:- “14. The entire assessment is…