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 366,459 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1959 (3) TMI 2 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 151, 1959 AIR 1238] iv. Umacharan Shaw and Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 271], v. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 288], vi. New Ambadi Estates (Private) Limited vs. State Of Tamil Nadu [1991 (3) TMI 10 - Madras High Court; Other Citation: (1993) 200 ITR 64], vii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax…

Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1959 (3) TMI 2 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 151, 1959 AIR 1238] iv. Umacharan Shaw and Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 271], v. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 288], vi. New Ambadi Estates (Private) Limited vs. State Of Tamil Nadu [1991 (3) TMI 10 - Madras High Court; Other Citation: (1993) 200 ITR 64], vii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1959 (3) TMI 2 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 151, 1959 AIR 1238] iv. Umacharan Shaw and Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 271], v. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 288], vi. New Ambadi Estates (Private) Limited vs. State Of Tamil Nadu [1991 (3) TMI 10 - Madras High Court; Other Citation: (1993) 200 ITR 64], vii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1959 (3) TMI 2 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 151, 1959 AIR 1238] iv. Umacharan Shaw and Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 271], v. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 288], vi. New Ambadi Estates (Private) Limited vs. State Of Tamil Nadu [1991 (3) TMI 10 - Madras High Court; Other Citation: (1993) 200 ITR 64], vii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [1959 (3) TMI 2 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 151, 1959 AIR 1238] iv. Umacharan Shaw and Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 271], v. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 288], vi. New Ambadi Estates (Private) Limited vs. State Of Tamil Nadu [1991 (3) TMI 10 - Madras High Court; Other Citation: (1993) 200 ITR 64], vii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax…

Shri Ashnuth Goyal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ward -1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.276/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Shri Ashnuth Goyal The ACIT 141, Vidyut Nagar-A, Prince Road Vs. Ward 1(3) Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEYPG 6337 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of He…

Shri Arnav Goyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena,Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.275/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Shri Arnav Goyal The ITO 141, Vidyut Nagar-A, Prince Road , Vs. Ward 2(4) Ajmer Road,Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ARBPG 7921 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena,Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh r…

DCIT Cent. Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1824/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)

…like to submit your goodselves that it is a settled principle of law that suspicion, however 11 ITA.NO.1824/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) C.O.No. 46/MUM/2022 Soma Enterprises Ltd., strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros V CIT (37 ITR 271 SC) it was held by the Hon Supreme Court that "Suspicion can not take the place of proof". In the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd V CIT 26 ITR 775(SC), the Hon'ble supreme Court made an observation that the Assessing officer is not entitled to make a pure Guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. 5.…

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 235/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

…o controvert the above findings of the Ld. C1T(A). 51. The settled proposition of law is that, suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of evidence. As held by the Hon ’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT reported in 37 ITR 271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which has li…

The Addl. CIT Range -1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 227/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

…o controvert the above findings of the Ld. C1T(A). 51. The settled proposition of law is that, suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of evidence. As held by the Hon ’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT reported in 37 ITR 271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which has li…

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 226/IND/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

…o controvert the above findings of the Ld. C1T(A). 51. The settled proposition of law is that, suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of evidence. As held by the Hon ’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT reported in 37 ITR 271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which has li…

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S. Manish Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result grounds of revenue for A

ITA 219/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ruchira SinghalFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

…to controvert the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 51. The settled proposition of law is that, suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of evidence. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT reported in 37 ITR 271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which has live nexus with the findin…

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S. Manish Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result grounds of revenue for A

ITA 218/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ruchira SinghalFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

…to controvert the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 51. The settled proposition of law is that, suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of evidence. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT reported in 37 ITR 271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which has live nexus with the findin…

Kiran Bhanwarlal Jogani, Mumbai vs. ITO-5(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2441/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekiranbhanwarlaljogani, Vs. Ito-5(3)(3), 1101-A Wing, Pratiksha Room.No.564,5 Floor, Tower,Rs Nimkar Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400008. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acopj7976N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Rajkumar Singh.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Rajkumar Singh.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Richa Gulati.DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…rictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 16. We find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions. However we do not find that, the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A), have brought out any…

Pine Tree Consultants P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle - 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1695/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.1696/Mum/2020 (A.Y: 2013-14) Pine Tree Consultants Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(2)(2) Pvt Ltd, No.104, Raheja Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, 1St Floor, Mk Road, Free Press Journal Mumbai -400020. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp8816F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cit(A))-8 Mumbai Passed Under Sec250 Of The Act

For Appellant: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Arora.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…ugned addition has been made merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions; the appellants contend that assessment cannot be based on assumptions and presumptions. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros (37 ITR 271) at page 272 in clause (v) has held that no addition could be made on presumption; suspicion however, strong, cannot take place of evidence. In view of the above, the appellants contend that the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act ought to be deleted. 5. Re Ground of appeal no 4- Disallowance under section 3…

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Dilip B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 2349/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that 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). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2022[ABUPK2500L]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ot partake the character of evidence. The reliance is placed on following decisions: - i) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Case Law PB page 83-89 ii) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) Case Law PB page 90-85 iii) CIT vs. Kapil Nagpal, DBITA 609/2014 (Delhi HC) Case Law PB page 96-104 iv) Goyal Gases (P.) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1997] 94 TAXMAN 57 (DELHI) Case Law PB page 105-106 It is admitted position of law the suspicion can be initiating point for investigation but not the final basis of assessment/reassessm…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ot partake the character of evidence. The reliance is placed on following decisions: - i) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Case Law PB page 83-89 ii) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) 11 Shri Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur. Case Law PB page 90-85 iii) CIT vs. Kapil Nagpal, DBITA 609/2014 (Delhi HC) Case Law PB page 96-104 iv) Goyal Gases (P.) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1997] 94 TAXMAN 57 (DELHI) Case Law PB page 105-106 It is admitted position of law the suspicion can be initiating point for investigation but not the…

Aakash Films Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -50, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1762/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012) 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. CIT1, (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 cann…

Shri Daravjeet Singh Poonia, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

ITA 616/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

…ation/statement given by the assessee and has converted good proof into no proof. The ld. Counsel relied on the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC)& in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Co vs. CIT, 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take place as proof. I.T.A. No.616/Asr/2019 4 Assessment Year: 2011-12 4. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The relevant para of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted as below: “6.1 I have carefully considere…