UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v. CIT

ACIT, CC-3, Surat vs. Shri Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrps 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

…ered into by them as per the record found with them. In such as case, even if the assessing officer has information that the transactions are likely to be bogus; his work started from here. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Umarchand Saha & Bros. V/s. CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) has held that suspicion. The assessee has conclusively proved the purchase of shares of two concerns, payment through banking channels, confirmed to the department in independent enquiries, holding of the original shares in Demat form with reputed concern, acquisition of shares of M/S. Bakra Pratishthan Ltd. through order of amalgamation passe…

The ACIT Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Goyal Developers, Indore

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

…CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of DhirajLalGirdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). The AO has placed reliance on excel sheet in which even name of the appellant is missing, there is no mention of any on-money received by appellant, date of receipt of…

The ACIT Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Goyal Developers, Indore

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

…CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of DhirajLalGirdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). The AO has placed reliance on excel sheet in which even name of the appellant is missing, there is no mention of any on-money received by appellant, date of receipt of…

DCIT, Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Signature Builders and Coloniser, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

…agree with the contention of the appellant that the A.O. is not justified in making the addition simply on assumption and presumption basis. It would be pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) wherein it was held that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. It would be most pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of K P Varghese v/s ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC)wherein it was held that assessee must be shown to have received more than what is disclosed by him as consideration. Burden of pr…

DCIT-Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Singnature Colonisers, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

…agree with the contention of the appellant that the A.O. is not justified in making the addition simply on assumption and presumption basis. It would be pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) wherein it was held that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. It would be most pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of K P Varghese v/s ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC)wherein it was held that assessee must be shown to have received more than what is disclosed by him as consideration. Burden of pr…

The ITO 3(2), Indore vs. M/S. Apex Realities, Indore

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

…efore, the onus of proof is on Revenue to prove that the assessee made some unaccounted investment in purchase of property. Our Observations are supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. vs CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) 2. K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) 3. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 4. Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 13. In view of the above facts in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge his onus and simply on…

M/S. Apex Realities, Indore vs. The ITO 3(2), Indore

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

…efore, the onus of proof is on Revenue to prove that the assessee made some unaccounted investment in purchase of property. Our Observations are supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. vs CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) 2. K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) 3. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 4. Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 13. In view of the above facts in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge his onus and simply on…

DCIT Central 2, Indore vs. M/S Gautamswami Enterprises, Indore

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2012-13

…agree with the contention of the appellant that Id A.O. is not justified in making the addition Simply on assumption and presumption basis. It would be pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. v /s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) wherein it was held that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. It Would be most pertinent to refer to the deCision of Hon I ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese vis ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC) wherein it was held that assessee must be shown to have received more than what is disclosed by him as consideration. Burden of…

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…IT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.7.3 In view of the above judicial pronouncement, the AO was not justified in making addition on estimate basis and also when no corroborative evidence was found s…

The ACIT (Central)-1, Indore vs. Dilip Kumar Mahendra Kumar Jain HUF, Indore

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

…T (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. v/s Cl'T 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (Se). Also, once the assessee has discharged its onus of proving that the parties under consideration are genuine, now the ball lies in the court of AO to prove that the c…