(Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist

88 ITR 200Supreme Court of India1973#5957 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 45fair market valuefirst appealtransfersection 147section 14indiasection 143(3)section 143personbusiness

Judgments citing (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist

CHETAN BALUBHAI SANENA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3849/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Chetan Balubhai Sanena Vs. Income Tax Officer – 32(1)(2) B-405, Rainbow Apartments Bandra Kurla Complex C.S. Road, Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400051 Mumbai 400068 Pan/Gir No. :Acipp3106F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, Chetan Balubhai Sanena Vs. Income Tax Officer – 32(1)(2) B-405, Rainbow Apartments Bandra Kurla Complex C.S. Road, Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400051 Mumbai 400068 PAN/GIR No. :ACIPP3106F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Gunjan Kakkad Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT Date of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi,…

GARUDA MARKETING ASSOCIATES,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR

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

ITA 211/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Sri. Narayanan P Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…presumption as to remission or cessation of liability, or otherwise a change in its character, during the relevant year. An adverse inference, it is well-settled, would follow non-furnishing the requisite evidence (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC)). Also, non- passing of the entries in the books of account would not be determinative of the matter (Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC)). Entries in accounts, it is to be appreciated, recognize income, and do not create income. There are, thus, in the instant case…

SMT. RAJYALAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals and CO of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1020/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITA Nos.1017 & 1018/Bang/2011 & CO No.52/Bang/2014 Shri Karthik Krishna, Bangalore ITA Nos.1019 & 1020/Bang/2011 Smt. Rajyalakshmi, GPA Holder of Smt. Kavya Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1017 & 1018/Bang/2011 & CO No.52/Bang/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.1007/Bang/2011) Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 respectively Sri Karthik Krishna G-1 Brigade Lavelle 11/12, 7th Cross, Lavelle Road DCIT Vs. Bangalore Central Circle-2(3) Bangalore PAN NO : AKQPK3582R APPELLA…

SMT. RAJYALAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals and CO of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1019/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITA Nos.1017 & 1018/Bang/2011 & CO No.52/Bang/2014 Shri Karthik Krishna, Bangalore ITA Nos.1019 & 1020/Bang/2011 Smt. Rajyalakshmi, GPA Holder of Smt. Kavya Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1017 & 1018/Bang/2011 & CO No.52/Bang/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.1007/Bang/2011) Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 respectively Sri Karthik Krishna G-1 Brigade Lavelle 11/12, 7th Cross, Lavelle Road DCIT Vs. Bangalore Central Circle-2(3) Bangalore PAN NO : AKQPK3582R APPELLA…

SRI. KARTHIK KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals and CO of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1018/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITA Nos.1017 & 1018/Bang/2011 & CO No.52/Bang/2014 Shri Karthik Krishna, Bangalore ITA Nos.1019 & 1020/Bang/2011 Smt. Rajyalakshmi, GPA Holder of Smt. Kavya Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1017 & 1018/Bang/2011 & CO No.52/Bang/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.1007/Bang/2011) Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 respectively Sri Karthik Krishna G-1 Brigade Lavelle 11/12, 7th Cross, Lavelle Road DCIT Vs. Bangalore Central Circle-2(3) Bangalore PAN NO : AKQPK3582R APPELLA…

SRI. KARTHIK KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals and CO of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1017/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITA Nos.1017 & 1018/Bang/2011 & CO No.52/Bang/2014 Shri Karthik Krishna, Bangalore ITA Nos.1019 & 1020/Bang/2011 Smt. Rajyalakshmi, GPA Holder of Smt. Kavya Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1017 & 1018/Bang/2011 & CO No.52/Bang/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.1007/Bang/2011) Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 respectively Sri Karthik Krishna G-1 Brigade Lavelle 11/12, 7th Cross, Lavelle Road DCIT Vs. Bangalore Central Circle-2(3) Bangalore PAN NO : AKQPK3582R APPELLA…

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…ser; it being in fact earmarked for residential purposes in the town planning scheme (refer paras 4, 9 of this order).Non-production of evidence in the possession of the assessee would lead to an adverse inference being drawn (UoI v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC)). Continuing further, the said permissions/approvals would be taken only by the Builder-vendee which, inasmuch as the construction commences soon after the sale, appear to have been sought straight-away on entering the agreement to sell. The same would only be with the consent of the assessee inasmuch as the vendee has no locus standi otherwi…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

…e entire payment of Rs. 675 lacs, detailed therein, is to the party of first part, the seller. The settled principle of interpretation is that adverse inferences shall follow non-furnishing of the relevant evidence (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC)). The ld. CIT(A) has in reading it as implying a sale consideration of Rs.100 lakhs, i.e., at a near par value of Rs.119 per share, has, as afore-noted, been guided by the manner of discharge of the sale Page 17 ITANos. 206 & 254/Coch/2019 (AY: 2014-15) K.P. Johny vs. Asst. CIT consideration, making it a self-defeating exercise. It also viol…

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

…e entire payment of Rs. 675 lacs, detailed therein, is to the party of first part, the seller. The settled principle of interpretation is that adverse inferences shall follow non-furnishing of the relevant evidence (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC)). The ld. CIT(A) has in reading it as implying a sale consideration of Rs.100 lakhs, i.e., at a near par value of Rs.119 per share, has, as afore-noted, been guided by the manner of discharge of the sale Page 17 ITANos. 206 & 254/Coch/2019 (AY: 2014-15) K.P. Johny vs. Asst. CIT consideration, making it a self-defeating exercise. It also viol…

SRI.JOHN MATHEW N,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair &For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 230ASection 234B

…ted. It is trite law that a failure to adduce evidence; rather, the best evidence that a party can furnish, being that which is supposed to be in it’s possession, would raise the presumption as to adverse inference (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC)). On the facts available on record, the assessment of capital gains in the instant case has been in view of the assessee’s claim of the AOP (consisting of assessee and his wife), which had returned the lease income on the subject land, had not been conveyed the ownership of the land and, which, therefore continued to vest with the assessee an…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. KEMTANI & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 59/JAB/2019 (Asst. Year: 2011-12) Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1), vs. Kemtani & Associates, Jabalpur. B-663, Mahanadda, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur (MP) [PAN : AAFFT 3981 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 71/JAB/2015 (Asst. Year: 2011-12) Kemtani & Associates, vs. Commissioner-1, Jabalpur. B-663, Mahanadda, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur (MP) [PAN : AAFFT 3981 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA Revenue by : Shri Shravan Kumar Got…

M/S KEMTANI & ASSOCIATES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 71/JAB/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 59/JAB/2019 (Asst. Year: 2011-12) Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1), vs. Kemtani & Associates, Jabalpur. B-663, Mahanadda, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur (MP) [PAN : AAFFT 3981 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 71/JAB/2015 (Asst. Year: 2011-12) Kemtani & Associates, vs. Commissioner-1, Jabalpur. B-663, Mahanadda, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur (MP) [PAN : AAFFT 3981 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA Revenue by : Shri Shravan Kumar Got…

M/S.ASIT DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), JABALPUR

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

ITA 19/JAB/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)

…t one made in view of an unsatisfactory explanation inasmuch as it is not substantiated. Not producing the evidence which the assessee is expected to be possessed of would even otherwise entail an adverse inference (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC)). The question that therefore obtains is whether the assessee is under the given facts and circumstances of the case; the matter already having traversed through assessment, remand and first appellate stage, 12 Asit Dixit v. ITO to be allowed a further opportunity. It is this question that needs to be addressed, and qua which this Tribunal co…

SHRI SURINDER SINGH DECEASED,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/ASR/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Nagpal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Negi (D.R.)
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148(1)

…e proceedings, the identity of AS (as the brother of SS) and a principal character in the entire transaction, was sought to be concealed. Withholding of best evidence would entitle the Court to draw an adverse inference (UoI v. Rai Singh Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC)), even as, clearly, the assessee has not met the burden of proof on it to satisfactorily explain the impugned cash deposit, so that, in law, the amount would stand to be assessed in the hands of the assessee (SS), the beneficiary of the bank account. This answers Q. (b) above. It is, under the circumstances, neither necessary nor proper to ad…

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 69

…sessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that since reasons have not been supplied to assessee, therefore, assessment may be quashed. He has relied upon following decisions : (i) Union of India & Others vs. Rai Singh Deb Singh Bist & Another [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC). 11 ITA.No.139/Del./2016 Mr. Krishna Kumar, New Delhi. (ii) Order of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Vardhman Holdings Ltd., vs. AC, Ludhiana 158 ITD 843. (iii) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramaiah [2019] 262 Taxman 16. (iv) Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Courtin the case of Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramaiah…

SH. ARUN KUMAR SETH,,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 36/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…upplied) It is clearly stated that no supporting evidences were produced by the assessee in the appellate proceedings. In which case, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is perfectly justified in drawing an adverse inference (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC); Kalyani Medical Store v. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 387 (Cal)). In fact, this reduction by him, impugned per the instant appeal – inasmuch as it is total, is, in the absence of any evidence led by the assesse before him, an indulgence by the ld. CIT(A), not supported by any facts/material. The Revenue being not in appeal, the said issue would theref…

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 144Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Jaspal Singh s/o Swaran Singh, vs. Income Tax Officer, 45 GF, B-Block, Ward-5(2), Amritsar Ranjit Avenue Flats, Amritsar [PAN: ABQPS 7190G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 07.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar ('CIT(A)'…

SH. GURJEET SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 597/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 597/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Bansal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…it needs to be appreciated, only in the knowledge of the assessee, so that where he is unable to lead evidence toward the same, justifying or substantiating his case, an adverse inference would, in law, follow (ref: Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC); Kalayani Medical Store v. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 387 (Cal)). Further, examining the assessee’s claims and the material on record, the same, i.e., the said payments, are completely unproved, which examination shall form the ensuing part of this order. There is, to begin with, no confirmation of account which, i.e., the 4.4 confirmation of paymen…

SH. INDERJEET SINGH ARORA,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 310/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [Pan: Advpa 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By A Period Of 21 Days. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Petition Dated 06/8/2016 By The Assessee Is The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, Served On His Counsel, Sh.Pankaj Arora, On 17/2/2014, In Time. The Explanation Appears Bona Fide & The Delay Cannot Be Said To Be Substantial. The Delay Was Accordingly Condoned & The Hearing In The Matter Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Das (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [PAN: ADVPA 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date of hearing : 22.10.2018 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 08.01…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITA-740/2008HC Delhi24 Dec 2010
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 80

…being available on the record, it is submitted that the issuance of notice under Section 148 cannot be countenanced. Reliance in this context is placed on the following judgments: (i) Union of India and Ors. vs. Raisingh Debsingh Bist and Anr., (1973) 88 ITR 200 (SC). (ii) Chhaganmal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaillaya and Ors., (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC). G. The re-assessment cannot be done to nullify the order of the appellate authority applying the principle of doctrine of merger. The contention of the respondent is that since the respondent was in appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A)…