Ushakant N Patel v. CIT

282 ITR 553High Court2006#2521 most cited

What is Ushakant N Patel v. CIT authority for?

Under Sections 69 and 69B of the Income-tax Act, the burden of proof to establish that an assessee has made investments not recorded in the books of account lies with the Revenue. The Assessing Officer must first prove that such investments were made before requiring the assessee to explain their source; unsubstantiated material from third parties is not conclusive.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ushakant N Patel v CIT · Section 69 · Section 69B · burden of proof · onus on Revenue · unexplained investment · unaccounted investment · on-money · loose papers · third-party evidence · additions under 69B · investment not recorded

Also reported as

154 Taxmann 55

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 69BSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 69CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 127
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

circle ratesection 4(1)section 80ib(10)warrant of authorisationsection 69bsection 60within four yearson-moneyloose paperssection 52section 132(1)on money receipt

Judgments citing Ushakant N Patel v. CIT

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhupendra Trikamji Panchani, Rajkot

ITA 23/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

…held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Incometax v, Daulatram Rawatmull, (1964 (3) TMI 14-SC), even if circumstances raise a suspicion, suspicion cannot take the place of evidence. (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ushakant N Patel v CIT 282 ITR 553 (Guj) has held that: As per the binding ratio laid down by the Honorable jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the aforesaid judgment, firstly it was incumbent upon the A.O. to establish that said investment i.e. the alleged amount paid on account of impugned bana chithi was in fact poid by the appellant assessee himself and no other assessee o…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smt. Bhavnaben Bhovanbhai Rangani, Rajkot

ITA 22/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

…held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Incometax v, Daulatram Rawatmull, (1964 (3) TMI 14-SC), even if circumstances raise a suspicion, suspicion cannot take the place of evidence. (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ushakant N Patel v CIT 282 ITR 553 (Guj) has held that: As per the binding ratio laid down by the Honorable jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the aforesaid judgment, firstly it was incumbent upon the A.O. to establish that said investment i.e. the alleged amount paid on account of impugned bana chithi was in fact poid by the appellant assessee himself and no other assessee o…

The ACIT (Central)-I, Bhopal vs. M/S. D.K. Construction, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 37/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…o establish that the loans and advance was given by the assessee and the said finding could not have been based simply on presumption. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the a. Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant n Patel v CIT (2006) 282 ITR 553 where the court held that: Para 12 to 16: The AO made addition under s. 69 and the CIT(A) found that there was no basis to hold that the investments, if any, were made in the financial year corresponding to the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue in a very cursory manner. The Tribunal lost sight of the fac…

The ACIT (Central)-I, Bhopal vs. M/S. D.K. Construction, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 36/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…o establish that the loans and advance was given by the assessee and the said finding could not have been based simply on presumption. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the a. Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant n Patel v CIT (2006) 282 ITR 553 where the court held that: Para 12 to 16: The AO made addition under s. 69 and the CIT(A) found that there was no basis to hold that the investments, if any, were made in the financial year corresponding to the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue in a very cursory manner. The Tribunal lost sight of the fac…

The ACIT (Central)-I, Bhopal vs. M/S. D.K. Construction, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…o establish that the loans and advance was given by the assessee and the said finding could not have been based simply on presumption. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the a. Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant n Patel v CIT (2006) 282 ITR 553 where the court held that: Para 12 to 16: The AO made addition under s. 69 and the CIT(A) found that there was no basis to hold that the investments, if any, were made in the financial year corresponding to the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue in a very cursory manner. The Tribunal lost sight of the fac…

The ACIT (Central)-I, Bhopal vs. M/S. D.K. Construction, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 34/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…o establish that the loans and advance was given by the assessee and the said finding could not have been based simply on presumption. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the a. Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant n Patel v CIT (2006) 282 ITR 553 where the court held that: Para 12 to 16: The AO made addition under s. 69 and the CIT(A) found that there was no basis to hold that the investments, if any, were made in the financial year corresponding to the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue in a very cursory manner. The Tribunal lost sight of the fac…

M/S. D.K. Construction, Bhopal vs. The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 24/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…o establish that the loans and advance was given by the assessee and the said finding could not have been based simply on presumption. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the a. Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant n Patel v CIT (2006) 282 ITR 553 where the court held that: Para 12 to 16: The AO made addition under s. 69 and the CIT(A) found that there was no basis to hold that the investments, if any, were made in the financial year corresponding to the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue in a very cursory manner. The Tribunal lost sight of the fac…

Atul C. Vyas, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 1992-93 is partly allowed and the appeal filed for AY 1993-94 is allowed

ITA 6723/MUM/2012[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: The Tribunal For These Two Years. In The 1St Round, The Tribunal, Vide Its Order Dated 28.11.2008 Passed In Ita No. 4470/Mum/96 & Ita No.3050/Mum/1999, Had Restored All The Issues Contested By The Assessee To The File Of Learned Cit (A). Accordingly The Ld Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Orders, Which Are Being Challenged By The Assessee.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 6723/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 1992-93) I.T.A. No. 7376/Mum/2013 (A.Y. 1993-94) Vs. ACIT, CC-31 Atul C. Vyas 16, Hardayal Society Room No. 413 3, Garodia Nagar Aayakar Bhavan Ghatkopar East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 077. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AABPV5606N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dharmesh Shah Department by Shri Manoj Sinha Date of Hearing 22.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.12.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed these appeals challenging the orders passed by lea…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…sed by the assessee. This situation can very well arise, wherein search is conducted by the Department, as in the present case, on some broker, dealing in land transactions. It was submitted that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ushakant Patel (2006) 282 ITR 553 (Guj) has held that the burden of proof that the investment in the asset not recorded in the books of account is on the revenue. ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 43 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 62. It was submitted that unsubstantiated material found in the Pen-Drive cannot be considered as conclusive evidence so a…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…sed by the assessee. This situation can very well arise, wherein search is conducted by the Department, as in the present case, on some broker, dealing in land transactions. It was submitted that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ushakant Patel (2006) 282 ITR 553 (Guj) has held that the burden of proof that the investment in the asset not recorded in the books of account is on the revenue. ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 43 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 62. It was submitted that unsubstantiated material found in the Pen-Drive cannot be considered as conclusive evidence so a…

M/S. Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 504/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…the assessee at all as the ingredients of section 69 are not satisfied. In defence of his argument the assessee relied on the following decisions: 40 ITA No.259/M/2019 & ors. M/s. Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd. 1. Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 553 (Guj) 2. CIT vs. Mrugesh Jaykrishna (2000) 245 ITR 638 (Guj) 3. Dy.CIT vs. Singla Enclave developers (P.) Ltd. (2013) 40 taxmann.com 127 (Chandigarh-Trib.) 53. The Ld. A.R. also submits that AO is duty bound to prove that documents/information relied upon by him in which unrecorded investments were mentioned. Then the AO has to satisfy himself th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Growmore Research & Asset Management Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1196/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…the assessee at all as the ingredients of section 69 are not satisfied. In defence of his argument the assessee relied on the following decisions: 40 ITA No.259/M/2019 & ors. M/s. Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd. 1. Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 553 (Guj) 2. CIT vs. Mrugesh Jaykrishna (2000) 245 ITR 638 (Guj) 3. Dy.CIT vs. Singla Enclave developers (P.) Ltd. (2013) 40 taxmann.com 127 (Chandigarh-Trib.) 53. The Ld. A.R. also submits that AO is duty bound to prove that documents/information relied upon by him in which unrecorded investments were mentioned. Then the AO has to satisfy himself th…

The DCIT, Circle-9, Surat vs. M/S. I.P. Patel, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 414/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 108Section 145(3)Section 148Section 69C

…alf of suppliers Girish Bodra/Karan International and the diamonds were belonging to them. The facts of financial status of Shri Manish Kalavadiya do not make A.O’s view strong. Before me, the assessee also relied on the decision of Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT (282 ITR 553) (Guj). In this case it was held by Gujarat High Court that revenue must establish that there was an investment which was not recorded in books of accounts. In other words in the first instance it is incumbent upon the Authority to establish that there were investment made by assessee. Here in this case, the Assessing Officer has not Page 32 of 3…

M/S. I.P. Patel & Co., Surat vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-9, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 37/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 108Section 145(3)Section 148Section 69C

…alf of suppliers Girish Bodra/Karan International and the diamonds were belonging to them. The facts of financial status of Shri Manish Kalavadiya do not make A.O’s view strong. Before me, the assessee also relied on the decision of Ushakant N. Patel vs. CIT (282 ITR 553) (Guj). In this case it was held by Gujarat High Court that revenue must establish that there was an investment which was not recorded in books of accounts. In other words in the first instance it is incumbent upon the Authority to establish that there were investment made by assessee. Here in this case, the Assessing Officer has not Page 32 of 3…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) Jagat Singh Vs ACIT C/o. DB Jain & Co. Central Circle-5 1-Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi Delhi ALDPS0734K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C. S. Agrawal, Sr. Adv & Sh. D. B. Jain, FCA Respondent by Sh. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by CIT (A)-XXIV…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) Jagat Singh Vs ACIT C/o. DB Jain & Co. Central Circle-5 1-Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi Delhi ALDPS0734K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C. S. Agrawal, Sr. Adv & Sh. D. B. Jain, FCA Respondent by Sh. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by CIT (A)-XXIV…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3037/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) Jagat Singh Vs ACIT C/o. DB Jain & Co. Central Circle-5 1-Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi Delhi ALDPS0734K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C. S. Agrawal, Sr. Adv & Sh. D. B. Jain, FCA Respondent by Sh. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by CIT (A)-XXIV…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3036/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) Jagat Singh Vs ACIT C/o. DB Jain & Co. Central Circle-5 1-Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi Delhi ALDPS0734K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C. S. Agrawal, Sr. Adv & Sh. D. B. Jain, FCA Respondent by Sh. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2015 passed by CIT (A)-XXIV…

Navneet Jhamb, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 43(3)

…u/s 292C of the Act that those documents represent the income of the assessee. He further stated that even if the assessee does not give any reply it does not give any authority to the revenue to assess the income of the assessee. He relied on the decision on 282 ITR 553. 8. The ld DR vehemently referred to the statement of the assessee wherein, the assessee has given no explanation to the documents found during the course of search. She therefore, submitted that in absence of that, ld AO has to taken a view with respect to those statements. She referred to question No. 13, 14 and 15 of the statement wherein, the…

Manoj Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 24(2) Erstwhile DCIT - 20(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1593/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmanoj Patel, 314B,Samartha Aagan Ii Off Kl Walawalkar Road, Andheri West, Mumbai 400053 ------- Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 69

…le to file return of income. In support of his submission the landed AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Shankar R. Mhatre Versus ACIT [2009] 117 ITD 241 (Mumbai), decision of Gujarat High Court in Ushakant N Patel Versus CIT (282 ITR 553) (Gujarat), Rajasthan High Court in Roopchand Gandhi Versus CIT (216 CTR 273) (Rajasthan) Allahabad High Court in Shri Ram Jaiswal Versus CIT (226 ITR 235). The ld AR also relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholder Private limited Versus CIT (349 ITR 336 Bombay). 5. We have considered the rival sub…