Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT

45 ITR 206Supreme Court of India1962#487 most cited

What is Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT authority for?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) can gather material for assessment through private enquiries but must disclose such material to the assessee and provide an opportunity to explain it to uphold the principles of natural justice. The ITO is not bound by strict rules of evidence and can use material collected privately, provided disclosure and explanation are afforded.

193

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT · 45 ITR 206 · SC · private enquiry · disclosure of material · opportunity to explain · natural justice · cross-examination

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 132

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharesretention moneyonus of proofsection 269tsection 158bbsection 269sthird party informationsection 271eicdsdumb documentssection 132(4a)section 292c

Judgments citing Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

…the statements of Sh. MukeshChoksi, which were neither supplied to assessee nor was opportunity of cross examination was provided. Ld.AO and Id.CIT(A) have denied the opportunity of cross examination relying upon following case laws: C. Vasantlal& Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206: On perusal of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order, it is seen that nowhere the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in this order that opportunity of cross examination need not be provided to the assessee even though the statement of third party has been recorded by some other officer (or even by assessing officer) that too behind the back of the assessee.…

DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Sh. Aman Batra, Civil Lines

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1041/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 28Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…from Page no. 243 of the paperbook. The submission of 11 assessee is that such unconfronted material cannot be any basis whatsoever to make or sustain any addition. Reliance is placed upon: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. - Vasantlal& Co. (45 ITR 206 SC) b) Unreliable material. The DML report per se is unreliable and cannot be basis of any addition. As per page no. 13 & 14 of the assessment order, The DML report contains vouchers of Bar Code, Stock Transfer etc. It does not contain merely alleged GST sale modification. Thus DML report per se should not be basis of any quantification of alleged…

Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 118/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

…ceedings is ordinarily used. The Assessing Officer is not fettered or bound by technical rules about evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of low. 26 ITR 775 (S.C), 45 ITR 206 (S.C). 63 ITR 449 (S.C). Thus, the assessment can be made on the basis of inference on evidence which in criminal or civil justice may be insufficient. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs Vs. D. Bhoormal A.R. 1974 SC 859, the department is not required to prove 10 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani Vs. Income Tax Officer,…

Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 117/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

…ceedings is ordinarily used. The Assessing Officer is not fettered or bound by technical rules about evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of low. 26 ITR 775 (S.C), 45 ITR 206 (S.C). 63 ITR 449 (S.C). Thus, the assessment can be made on the basis of inference on evidence which in criminal or civil justice may be insufficient. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs Vs. D. Bhoormal A.R. 1974 SC 859, the department is not required to prove 10 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani Vs. Income Tax Officer,…

Chandra Kumar Jain, Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer, Damoh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Chandra Kumar Jain, Vs. Nfac, Delhi, (Jurisdiction Prop. M/S Chandra & Sons, 14, 121 Officer, Ito, Damoh, M.P. Kirana Merchant, Bakoli Kirana Line, Damoh, M.P. Pan:Acjpj7460N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 29.12.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ito, Ward, Damoh Dated 12.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ld. Ao Being Based On Third Party'S Statements Without Allowing Their Cross Verification & Hence Addition Made Are Against Law & Natural Justice As Has Been Held In The Case Of C. Vasantlal & Co. V. Cit [1962] 45 Itr 206 By Supreme Court. Hence Additions Of Rs 4,65,700/-And Rs 10,525,/- May Kindly Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Additions Made By Ao Of Rs. 4,76,225/-Without Considering The Fact That Bill Issued By M/S Narmada Sugar Pvt Ltd Narsinghpur.As Considered To Be That Of Assessee Was Not In Assessee Name & Hence Addition Was Based On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

…, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO being based on third party's statements without allowing their cross verification and hence addition made are against law AND natural justice as has been held in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206 by Supreme Court. Hence additions of Rs 4,65,700/-and Rs 10,525,/- may kindly be deleted. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case, LD CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions made by AO of Rs. 4,76,225/-without considering the fact that bill issued by M/s Narmada Sugar Pvt Ltd Narsinghpur.as considered to be that of assessee was not in assess…

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

…letters from bank manager, not shown to assesse, treated amount so remitted as income from undisclosed sources—Tribunal, relying on letters of bank manager, upheld ITO's action-Whether tribunal justified-Held, on facts, no. 16. C Vasantlal& Co. vs. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC) It was open to an income tax officer to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if he desires to use materials so collected, the assesse must be informed of the materials and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it. 17. We have further noticed that the name of the company is mentioned at Noticee-…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Amarjit Singh, Bathinda

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

ITA 774/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253Section 68

…count in his statement ‘on oath’ but it is pertinent to note that he can accept ‘on oath’ qua himself and cannot bind the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Vasantlal & Co. Vs CIT 45 ITR 206. He also relied upon two decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, namely; CIT Vs Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 326 and CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95. 15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that document is to be read as a whole. He took us through the document which is being reproduced by the CIT(A) at page 20 of the impugned or…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Jaipur vs. Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 173/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ith regard to genuineness of transactions is "Preponderance of probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt". Ld. AO also placed reliance on the decision f Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) 255, Sumati Dayal V/s CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), C. Vasant Lal & Co., 45 ITR 206 (SC). 4.4 As regards the contention of the assessee company to make available (being witness), Shri Praveen Kumar Jain to enquire 11 ITA No. 173/JPR/2024 & CO No. 03/JP/2024 Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. about the transactions and cross examination is of no use as sufficient material evidences are already in the possession with the department t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 454/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…t apply to I. T. Acts and the real test with regard to genuineness of transaction "Preponderance of Probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt" is Reliance is placed on, Chaturbhuj Panauj AIT 1669 (SC) 255, Sumati Dayal V/s CIT, 214 , C. VasantLal & Co., 45 ITR 206 (SC). ITR 801 (SC) (g) The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kanchwala Gems V/s JCIT. ITA No. 134/JP/02 dated 10-12-2003, affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 288 ITR 10(SC) has 15 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchasers. (f) It is also of…

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 410/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…n the eyes of law, as the AO has rightly invoked the reopening of assessment by initiating proceedings under section 147 and 148 of the income tax Act. Dr also relied upon the decisions of different courts. 13 GEMCO INTERNATIONAL VS ITO,WARD 2(1), JAIPUR 1. 45 ITR 206(SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA C. Vasantat and Co vs Commissioner of Income-tax 2. M/S Home Finders Housing Ltd vs Income Tax Officer MADRAS HIGH COURT 3. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 333 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Amit Polyprints (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 4. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN Ankit Agrochem…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Ayakar Bhawan Churchgate vs. Varsha Corporation Limited, Malad (West)

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

ITA 348/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyalito, R. No. 227, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400 020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Varsha Corporation Ltd. 13, Adarsh Society, Varsha Ramachandra Lane Extn. Malad (West), Mumbai- 400 064. Pan No.Aabcv2293E ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajora, Ld.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…ot apply to Income Tax proceedings and thus the preponderance of probabilities needs to be proved and not in beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance was placed by the AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal and Co. v. CIT, (1962) 45 ITR 206. The AO therefore held, that the purchases made by the Assessee from M/s. Shashwat Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. are not genuine and that the Assessee Company obtained bogus bills for non-existing purchases amounting to Rs. 6, 76, 07,844/- for A.Y. 6 Varsha Corporation Ltd. 2017-18 and thereby reduced its taxable income and thus disallowed the said amount…

ITO-26(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ravi Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3796/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Dharan Gandhi
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4

…ttle law that strict rules of evidence do not apply to Income Tax Act and the real test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is "Preponderance of Probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt" Reliance is placed on C. Vasantilal& Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and SumatiDayalVs.CIT(1996)214 ITR 801(SC). One has to consider 3 Ravi Realtors the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82ITR 540(SC)." 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) f…

Jaya Garg, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

Appeal is allowed

ITA 74/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Ms.Jaya Garg, Income-Tax Officer, C-4-C-5, Shvkripa Colony, Nfac, बनाम/ Indore New Delhi Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtpg4247L Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…rak. 7. Copy of statement of Shri Sharad Darak which is foundation of the reopening and additions has not been confronted to Appellant therefore the addition based thereon is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on decision of SC in C. Vasantlal [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC). 8. Further inspite of specific request no opportunity to cross examine has been provided. In absence of such cross examination the addition made by AO based on statement is not tenable in law. Reliance is placed on decision of SC in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)[02-09-2015]. 9. The Appellant has discharged…

Prateek Soni, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 476/IND/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Prateek Soni, Income-Tax Officer, 49,Krishna Bagh Colony, Nfac, बनाम/ Indore New Delhi Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bksps0203G Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri K.Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…arak. 8. Copy of statement of Shri Sharad Darak which is foundation of the reopening and additions has not been confronted to Appellant therefore the addition based thereon is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on decision of SC in C. Vasantlal [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC) 9. Further inspite of specific request no opportunity to cross examine has been provided. In absence of such cross examination the addition made by AO based on statement is not tenable in law. Reliance is placed on decision of SC in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)[02-09-2015] 10. The Appellant has discharged its…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2017-18 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly known as Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd.), # 18-2-16/4, Mukka Corporate House, First Cross N.G. Road, Attavar Manguluru 575 001 Karnataka PAN NO: AAGCM8310E APPELLANT Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement DCIT Vs. Central Circle-1 Manguluru RESPONDENT Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R.…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2017-18 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly known as Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd.), # 18-2-16/4, DCIT Mukka Corporate House, First Cross Central Circle-1 Vs. N.G. Road, Attavar Mangaluru Mangaluru 575 001 Karnataka PAN NO : AAGCM8310E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R.…

Nawal Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4419/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. It is settled law that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial 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” 26. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 had the occasion t…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…uch material. Page 33 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.30 He placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal and Company v. CIT 1962 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT / [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC} held as under: - "The Income-tax Office* is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if he desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…uch material. Page 33 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.30 He placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal and Company v. CIT 1962 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT / [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC} held as under: - "The Income-tax Office* is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if he desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…uch material. Page 33 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.30 He placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal and Company v. CIT 1962 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT / [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC} held as under: - "The Income-tax Office* is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if he desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining…