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 366,339 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

Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5125/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…held by 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). In the above background, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) has trifurcated the investor entities into three categories- (i) entities not belonging to tainted group with respect of whom no incriminating material was found during search; (ii) entities belonging to tainted group where cash was exchanged in lieu of accommodation entries; (iii) entiti…

M.Kiran Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

…onsidered view, suspicion however strong cannot take place of evidences which can be used against the assessee. This principle is supported by the 25 I.T.A. No.3374/CHNY/2019 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). 7.8 Coming back to the case law relied upon by the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has heavily relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Kishore Kumar, which came to be confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We have gone through the case law relied upon by the CIT(A) and found that in that case, there were print out s…

M/S Shailesh Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6068/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Shailesh Jain Huf, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaihs3182H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No. Agspj9797K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…eld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The ld AR submitted 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). 6.5. The ld AR submits that movement in prices of shares is governed by several factors without there being any nexus to the projects, projection etc and this fact gets clearly established if one refers to the present movement in shares of several 10 ITA No. 6068/M/2019 & I TA No.7064/M/2019 M/s. Shailesh Jain HUF& Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain c…

Vinod L. Gadhiya, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2785/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 153A

…d 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). 7.5. The ld AR submits that the Ld. AO has not made any allegation of commission payment and hence no addition u/s 69C of the Act was made. The ld AR submits that the assessee also in reply to question no. 44, page 51 of the AO has stated that no commission payment was made by him which is not disputed by the Investigation Wing and the Ld. AO.…

Income Tax Officer 4(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sajjan Kumar Bajoria, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7354/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7354/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Shri Sajjan Kumar Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2732-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7355/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Smt. Sushila Devi Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2731-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…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). In view of the forgoing, it could very well be said that onus casted upon Ld. AO 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. The whole basis of making additions is third party statemen…

Smt. Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 6/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 5/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 10/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…preme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. b. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 20 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could not be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. d. Hon. Kolkata Hig…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…preme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. b. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 20 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could not be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. d. Hon. Kolkata Hig…

ACIT, Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Grd Commodities Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2277/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…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…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2993/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…y the assessee has retracted his statement along with sworn affidavit and explained the reasons for giving admission at the time of search. 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 received from various vendors and parties for inflation of…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2704/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…y the assessee has retracted his statement along with sworn affidavit and explained the reasons for giving admission at the time of search. 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 received from various vendors and parties for inflation of…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2703/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…y the assessee has retracted his statement along with sworn affidavit and explained the reasons for giving admission at the time of search. 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 received from various vendors and parties for inflation of…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2195/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…y the assessee has retracted his statement along with sworn affidavit and explained the reasons for giving admission at the time of search. 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 received from various vendors and parties for inflation of…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2194/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…y the assessee has retracted his statement along with sworn affidavit and explained the reasons for giving admission at the time of search. 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 received from various vendors and parties for inflation of…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2705/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…y the assessee has retracted his statement along with sworn affidavit and explained the reasons for giving admission at the time of search. 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 received from various vendors and parties for inflation of…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115J

…5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Vs Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(1), 311, B-4/A, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACE9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: The above two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders…

M/S Gulmohar Developers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 867/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

…spicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. In this case the vouchers of sale cannot be rejected on the basis of suspicion and doubt. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements 1. Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 3. CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 4. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) 5. State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) 6. J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) Further more, I also observed that in the immediately preceding year the scrutiny assessment was frame…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…le Supreme Court in several cases as under – a. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) b. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) d. Umacharan Shaw& Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) e. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] 15. Attention is also invited to the judgment in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Others [1998] 3 SCC 410 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had considered the evidentiary value of any loose sheets or diary found…