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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1230/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1104/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1103/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1102/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1101/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1100/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1026/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1025/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1024/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…of the assessee. Further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he mu…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…e following case laws: " M/s SMC Share Brokers Limited vs DCIT Central Circle - 3 in ITA No. 250/Del/2005 " CIT vs. Biju Patnaik 190 ITR 396 (Orissa) " P.S Abdul Majee vs. ACIT & STO 209 ITR 821 " M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT 34 ITR 501 " Vasanti Lal & Co. vs. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) " State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shadull AIR 19971627 (SC) " Kishen Chart Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 " Sona Electric Co. vs. CIT 152 ITR 507(Del) " Narayan Chandra Baidya vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 207 " VOI vs. T.R. Verma (SC) (1959) 882 " Seth Gurumukh Singh vs. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 " CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1944) 210 ITR 104 (Cal)…

The Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Rakesh Saraogi & Soni (HUF), Raipur (Cg)

ITA 93/BIL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

Section 143(3)

…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 ITA Nos. 93 to 99/RPR/2014 & 12 C.O. Nos. 12 to 18/RPR/2014 . A.Y. 2004-05 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” 23. The Co-…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…he assessee are based on the concept of natural justice. In this regard, reference is made to and reliance is placed on- i) KishanchandChellaramVs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC), ii) CIT Vs East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. 63 ITR 449 (SC) iii) C. Vasantlal and Co. Vs CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) and iv) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 75 (SC). 7 M/s. Sunrise Metallic (India) Pvt. Ltd., In view of above judicial pronouncements, any assessment passed in violation of principles of natural justice is void in the score alone. In the case of Sagar Bose Vs ITO 561 (Kolkatta), the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT has deleted the addition…

Rajesh Agashe, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Kirit ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 133A

…as maintained by him. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellant to retract the statement was rejected by the A.O. relying on the decision in the case of M/s Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. C1T (26 ITR 775, 782 (SC)) and Shri Vasant Lal & Co. Vs. CIT (45 ITR 206, 209 (SC)). Accordingly, the amount of Rs.27,40,000 being additional income in respect of unaccounted cash received from students, a sum of Rs 10,00,000 being unexplained payments to teachers and a sum of Rs 7,50,000 being unexplained investment in furniture & fixtures was added to the income of the appellant.” 4. Against above order, assessee pr…

Lunawat Gems Corporation, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal the assessee is dismissed

ITA 879/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ao But Were Disposed Of Through A Non-Speaking Order Dated 18-06-2014 By The Ao. 2. Ignoring The Better G.P. Rate Achieved During The Year Than Immediately Preceding Year & Export Of Major Goods M/S. Lunawat Gems Corporation. Vs Dcit, Circle - 2, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…e Act. The fact in the present case is that the seller had accepted that he had not sold any goods to the appellant and the appellant was provided an opportunity to rebut this claim of the seller. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasantlal (45 ITR 206), the only requirement is that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be 5 M/s. Lunawat Gems Corporation. vs DCIT, Circle - 2, Jaipur provided to the assessee before an addition is made. It is seen that in the present case adequate opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant. Hence, the plea of the appellant on this count al…

Suresh Poddar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 624/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…ee has paid the amount which is undisclosed income of the assessee for converting the same as long term capital gain to be claimed as exempt u/s 54F of the Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of C. Vasabtkalal & Co. vs CIT 45 ITR 206. 8. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. I find that the assessee claimed to have purchased 5,900 equity shares of M/s Talent Infoways Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 7,455/- on 24.04.2003. The shares were purchased through broker M/s Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. a company of Shri Mukesh Choksi which…

ITO (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Baun Foundation Trust, Mumbai

ITA 216/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 153/Jp/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11 ) M.S Goenka Diamond & Jewells Acit, Circle-2, बिधम/ Ltd, 401, Panchratna, M.S.B. Ka Ncr Building, Rasta, Jaipur. Jaipur Vs.

For Appellant: Shri C. S. GulatiFor Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…Kotson Impex Pvt. Ltd. The AO has categorically dealt with the request of cross examination made by assessee of the said director of the bogus party. The AO has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. VasantLal and Company Vrs. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC)(3 judges bench) wherein it was observed that ‘the ITO is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But, it he desires sto luse the material so collected, the assessee must be informed about the material and given adequate opportunity to expl…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…es of which have not been provided.’’ 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and filed following case laws. 1. CIT vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC) 2. Sumit Dayal vs CIT , 214 ITR 801 (SC) 3. C. Vasantlal & Co. vs CIT, 45 ITR 206 (SC) 4. Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral vs CIT,327 ITR 424 (P&H) 5. B Kishore Kumar vs DCIT , 273 CTR 468 (Mad.) 6. B. Kisshore Kumar vs DCIT , 62 Taxm. Com 215 (SC) 7. CIT vs P.M. Aboobacker, 45Taxm (Ker.) 36 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 8. Smt. Amar Kumari Surana vs CIT, 226 ITR 344 (Raj.) 9. K.P. Verhese vs IT…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

…provided. This admission is sufficient to reject the contentions of the asseesse. (c) The assessee had requested for cross examination of such persons. In this regard, it is pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) (3 Judge Bench) had observed that “ the ITO is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But, if he desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed about the material and given adequate opportunity to explain it. The 4…

Muffazal Hakim Penwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3740/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3740/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Muffazal Hakim Penawala Cit(A)-28, India House, Ground Floor, Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, बनाम/ Shop No. 1-2, 246, A. R. Street, Nairman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp 1934 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi M. RathodFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…f 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 the decision in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. GT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayai Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CtT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). (iv) The purchas…

Meru Impex, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2660/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2660/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Meru Impex Acit-Circle 17(2), बनाम/ 15, 1St Floor, Agiary Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, Osman Manzil, 2Nd Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafm 6289 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. A. Khan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.01.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 10% Of Bogus Purchase Amounting To Rs.4,99,55,341/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan
Section 133(6)

…ll-settled law that strict rules of evidence do not apply to I.T 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. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). (iii) The purchases from hawala operators f…