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 366,314 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

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 543/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

…of the property nor has put any query about the physical inspection. Assessee’s contention Assumption that whole building is let out - wrong 5. It is a settled position of law that the suspicion, however, so great may be cannot substitute the actual facts. • 37 ITR 271 (SC) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT 5.1 The Assessing Officer has failed to carry out the directions as issued by the IT AT in its order dated 14th August 2019 which is binding on the Assessing Officer in proper perspective. In the fresh assessment order, the Assessing Officer has only supported the finding of his predecessor in original order da…

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 542/DEL/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

…of the property nor has put any query about the physical inspection. Assessee’s contention Assumption that whole building is let out - wrong 5. It is a settled position of law that the suspicion, however, so great may be cannot substitute the actual facts. • 37 ITR 271 (SC) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT 5.1 The Assessing Officer has failed to carry out the directions as issued by the IT AT in its order dated 14th August 2019 which is binding on the Assessing Officer in proper perspective. In the fresh assessment order, the Assessing Officer has only supported the finding of his predecessor in original order da…

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 541/DEL/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

…of the property nor has put any query about the physical inspection. Assessee’s contention Assumption that whole building is let out - wrong 5. It is a settled position of law that the suspicion, however, so great may be cannot substitute the actual facts. • 37 ITR 271 (SC) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT 5.1 The Assessing Officer has failed to carry out the directions as issued by the IT AT in its order dated 14th August 2019 which is binding on the Assessing Officer in proper perspective. In the fresh assessment order, the Assessing Officer has only supported the finding of his predecessor in original order da…

Asha Burman, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 46(1), New Dlehi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 540/DEL/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24

…of the property nor has put any query about the physical inspection. Assessee’s contention Assumption that whole building is let out - wrong 5. It is a settled position of law that the suspicion, however, so great may be cannot substitute the actual facts. • 37 ITR 271 (SC) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT 5.1 The Assessing Officer has failed to carry out the directions as issued by the IT AT in its order dated 14th August 2019 which is binding on the Assessing Officer in proper perspective. In the fresh assessment order, the Assessing Officer has only supported the finding of his predecessor in original order da…

ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1306/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 68

…nting the assessee with such material. It is a settled principle of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) has held that additions cannot be made merely on conjectures and surmises. Similarly, in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the onus to prove that the apparent is not real lies on the party who so alleges, and such onus must be discharged by bringing cogent evidence on record. While passing th…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…eer Kumar Jain v. CIT v) 258 ITR 717 (Del) ITO v. Vinod Kumar Soni ……… 36. It is further submitted that it is settled law that no addition/disallowance can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) VmaCharan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v ClT, Bombay (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iii) 26 ITR 775…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…eer Kumar Jain v. CIT v) 258 ITR 717 (Del) ITO v. Vinod Kumar Soni ……… 36. It is further submitted that it is settled law that no addition/disallowance can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) VmaCharan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v ClT, Bombay (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iii) 26 ITR 775…

DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rajarampuri Motipuri Gosavi, Thane

In the result, all the grounds of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3858/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Rajarampuri Motipuri Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Gosavi 6(1) 1002 Steppes Vasant Lawns, Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Pokharan Road No. 2, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Eastern Express Highway, Kurla Complex, Bandra Subhash Nagar, Thane – 400 (East), Mumbai – 400 051, 601, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpg2425M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…it with any kind of independent evidence linking such material with the assessee. As per the plethora of Court judgments discussed above, such an act is not permitted under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. P a g e | 23 A.Y. 2021-22 Rajarampuri Motipuri Gosavi Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence as held in the case of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (…

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Deshpande, Solapur, Maharashtra

In the result, the ground of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Income Tax, Central Circle- 6(1) बनाम Deshpande Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 528, Deshpande Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Near Bank Sangola, (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Solapur – 413 307, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpd0198H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr. DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…it with any kind of independent evidence linking such material with the assessee. As per the plethora of Court judgments discussed above, such an act is not permitted under the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence as held in the case of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. Thus, in the absence of any independent eviden…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Home Construction Co., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 351/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 65B

…stered sale deeds represented the best evidence of consideration. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including: • CIT v. Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288, SC), • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (37 ITR 271, SC), • CIT v. Mantri Share Brokers (96 taxmann.com 280, SC), • Maple Destinations and Dreambuild Pvt. Ltd. (162 taxmann.com 157, Delhi ITAT). 3.2 The CIT(A) concluded that the addition was based merely on conjectures and surmises, and in absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee, the addition was unsustainable. Accordingly, the…

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

…g adverse inference. 52.2 Further, the assessee submitted that assessment cannot be based on suspicion or conjecture. The AO has disallowed purchases only because of doubts and assumptions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw Bros. v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 271 has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Similarly, in State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew reported in 42 STC 348 (SC), it was held that additions cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or surmises. In the present case, all primary evidences of purchases were submitted. Hence, the disallowance is only based on suspi…

DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh vs. M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1306/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1285/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1286/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Dcit Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Chandigarh. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Manohar Infrastructure & बनाम/ Central Circle-1 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Vs. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

…could not be used against the assessee without affording the opportunity of cross- examination. The suspicion however strong could not take place the required proof as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT (37 ITR 271) as well as the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) wherein it was held that AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make any assessment without reference to any evidence / material. Further, corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidences. While making a disclosure of Rs.240.51 Lacs for this year, the assessee…

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1286/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1285/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1286/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Dcit Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Chandigarh. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Manohar Infrastructure & बनाम/ Central Circle-1 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Vs. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

…could not be used against the assessee without affording the opportunity of cross- examination. The suspicion however strong could not take place the required proof as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT (37 ITR 271) as well as the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) wherein it was held that AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make any assessment without reference to any evidence / material. Further, corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidences. While making a disclosure of Rs.240.51 Lacs for this year, the assessee…

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1285/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1285/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1286/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Dcit Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Chandigarh. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Manohar Infrastructure & बनाम/ Central Circle-1 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Vs. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

…could not be used against the assessee without affording the opportunity of cross- examination. The suspicion however strong could not take place the required proof as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT (37 ITR 271) as well as the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) wherein it was held that AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make any assessment without reference to any evidence / material. Further, corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidences. While making a disclosure of Rs.240.51 Lacs for this year, the assessee…

Sant Lal Aggarwal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

ITA 2243/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessmentyear:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…any evidence to rebut the evidences furnished by the assessee and made the addition on suspicion and speculations. It is settled law that, no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT iv) AIR 1977 SC 796 Kri…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…dition is requested to be deleted. NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES: 102. It is settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circum…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…dition is requested to be deleted. NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES: 102. It is settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circum…

Manisha Kamal Khetan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in terms of our

ITA 2698/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, SR AR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Artex Textile Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5005/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…ng stock and the profits either. The additions made have resulted assessment of cash sales twice which is not permissible in law. 11. It is trite that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare…

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)

…er, the Assessing Officer should proceed independently and conduct the case himself so he is acting in a quasi-judicial authority. That is the essence of our judicial system as decided in plethora of case laws including Umacharan Shaw and Bros. -Vs-CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. -Vs- CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) etc. Also the taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and in doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an assessee should remain un-recovered, they must also, at the…