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

Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7648/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 68

…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). Therefore, we find that onus as caster 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 es…

Ramesh Babulal Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbau

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7662/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 68

…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). Therefore, we find that onus as caster 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 es…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tions or presumptions or surmises or conjectures (i) K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); (ii) CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.1, (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Mere suspicion, no matter howsoever strong, is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus. Case Laws for Reference DY. CIT v. ADINATH INDUSTRIES (2001) 252 ITR 476 (2002) 120 TAXMAN 822 (GUJ) 29 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd The Assessing Officer observed that purchases made by assessee from XGT' were fake and latt…

The ACIT Ratlam, Ratlam vs. Ishri Deepak Kumar Soni, Ratlam

In the result, appeal of the revenue’s stands dismissed

ITA 270/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ant. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Padamchand Ramgopal [1970] 76 ITR 719 held that “insignificant mistake cannot form basis for rejection of books of accounts.” Similarly Hon'ble’ Apex court in the case of Umacharan Show and Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC) has observed that “there was no material on which the Income Tax Officer or the Appellate Tribunal could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There were many surmises and conjectures, and the Deepak Soni IT.A.No.270/Ind/2018 conclusion was the result of suspicion which could not take the place of proof”. 15. In the light o…

Sh. Kirpal Singh, Kapurthala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.167/Asr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sh. Kirpal Singh, Vs. Ito, Kapurthala-1, S/O Ravel Singh, Kapurthala H.No.644, Guru Nanak Nagar, Kapurthala स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Bsyps 8252 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Vijh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, DR
Section 143(1)Section 69A

…as lying deposited was found to be false, it would be remote and farfetched conclusion to hold that the money belonged to the person with whom it was lying deposited. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Umacharan Shaw reported at 37 ITR 271 that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. When the assessee had given reply for specific withdrawals, there was no reason to disbelieve the same. It was not justified on the 5 part of t he assessing officer to believe part of the statement and disbelieve part of the statement. The reduction of the amount received from Sh. Pishor Si…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Grandiose Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4Th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaagca5371D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By Shri Rahul Raman, Cit Dr : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…asoning is contradictory one, and also, self-defeating one "An assessment based on mere conjecture, surmise or suspicion, or on irrelevant and inadmissible evidences and material, is invalid and unsustainable in law vide; Umatharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC); Lachand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CII, AIR 1959 SC 1295 (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Dhakeshwari M/s Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1955 sc 65: (1954) 2 ITR 775 (SC); Dhiraj Lal Girdhari LaI v. CIT AIR 1955 SC 271 : (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). In making an assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the ITO is not entit…

M/S Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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” 25. M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. CIT [ITA No. 129 of 2012] (Cal HC) – “ In this case the ld AO found that the formal evidences produced by the assessee to support huge losses claimed in the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were stage managed. The Hon’ble High…

Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT
Section 143(3)

…oposition that when quantitative tally of sales is furnished along with the details of purchases, in such eventuality even if the purchasers are not available, no addition can be made merely on assumption or surmises. (iii) Umacharan Shaw& Bros Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)-for the proposition that it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In light of above discussion and several judicial precedents, it is requested before your honour to direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to apply the average GP of last 3 years on the accounted purchase/sales of the appellant rather…

Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 155/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT
Section 143(3)

…oposition that when quantitative tally of sales is furnished along with the details of purchases, in such eventuality even if the purchasers are not available, no addition can be made merely on assumption or surmises. (iii) Umacharan Shaw& Bros Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)-for the proposition that it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In light of above discussion and several judicial precedents, it is requested before your honour to direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to apply the average GP of last 3 years on the accounted purchase/sales of the appellant rather…

ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 154/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT
Section 143(3)

…oposition that when quantitative tally of sales is furnished along with the details of purchases, in such eventuality even if the purchasers are not available, no addition can be made merely on assumption or surmises. (iii) Umacharan Shaw& Bros Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)-for the proposition that it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In light of above discussion and several judicial precedents, it is requested before your honour to direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to apply the average GP of last 3 years on the accounted purchase/sales of the appellant rather…

ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 153/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT
Section 143(3)

…oposition that when quantitative tally of sales is furnished along with the details of purchases, in such eventuality even if the purchasers are not available, no addition can be made merely on assumption or surmises. (iii) Umacharan Shaw& Bros Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)-for the proposition that it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In light of above discussion and several judicial precedents, it is requested before your honour to direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to apply the average GP of last 3 years on the accounted purchase/sales of the appellant rather…

M/S Gullu Mal Gulanchi Lal Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)

…n an average land as reported by the Tehsildar. But he did not accept the contention of the assessee. This shows the variation on working of agricultural income on estimate basis. The ld. A/R relied upon the following decisions :- Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 4 M/s. Gullu Mal Gulachi Lal Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that…

Bina Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 2349/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 153ASection 69A

…ing the search that the assessee has made investment in the diamond jewellery. The Ld. AR further submitted that the additions cannot be 9 made merely on the basis of suspicion. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 271 (SC). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee made full disclosure and has submitted the details of the jewellery. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) accepted the details submitted by the assessee. Thus, in the absence of any tangible material on record the additions made cannot be sustained. The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Sarvajit Patel, Mumbai

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

ITA 879/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Malav P. Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ng to prove, the AO has completely distorted the facts and made an addition of Rs.61,50,000/- merely on the basis of presumptions and wrong assumptions. Relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC), wherein it is held that conclusion as a result of suspicion, surmises and conjectures cannot take place of proof, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.61,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relies on the order of the AO, whereas the Ld. counsel for the assessee supports the…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2451/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…e AO was based on his surmise, suspicion, presumption and conjecture which are not permissible under the provisions of law. The assessee also referred the land mark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 271 wherein it was held that the suspicion howsoever strong it is, but the same cannot take place of evidence. Therefore, there cannot be any adverse inference against the assessee based on such suspicion. 13.2 There was no evidence or material available with the AO suggesting that the assessee has made any sales outside the books of accounts. Theref…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1517/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…e AO was based on his surmise, suspicion, presumption and conjecture which are not permissible under the provisions of law. The assessee also referred the land mark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 271 wherein it was held that the suspicion howsoever strong it is, but the same cannot take place of evidence. Therefore, there cannot be any adverse inference against the assessee based on such suspicion. 13.2 There was no evidence or material available with the AO suggesting that the assessee has made any sales outside the books of accounts. Theref…

Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai

ITA 3429/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…charged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising interference to that effect. 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. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale prices are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash wou…

Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai

ITA 3428/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…charged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising interference to that effect. 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. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale prices are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash wou…

Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai

ITA 3427/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…charged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising interference to that effect. 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. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale prices are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash wou…

Shri. Mahendra B Mittal HUF, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3426/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…charged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising interference to that effect. 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. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale prices are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash wou…