← All Phrases

“hundi transaction”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69DSection 69D65 judgments

The decision most relied on for hundi transaction is CIT v. Sant Lal (118 Taxmann.com 432), cited in 154 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on hundi transaction

CIT v. Sant Lal
118 Taxmann.com 432 · 2020 · High Court
154
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of entries in a diary seized from a third party if the diary is not found in the assessee's premises, not in the assessee's handwriting, and the revenue fails to provide corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the diary.

MM Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
169 ITD 35 · 2018 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on entries in seized material, such as loose papers, found at a third party's premises. Independent corroborative evidence, specifically proving the actual transfer of money, is essential to sustain such additions during search assessments.

Mumbai), ACIT v. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte
83 Taxmann.com 6 · 2017 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

Evidence is critically important to corroborate entries found in seized material, especially when they indicate payments or loan/interest transactions. Specific reference to the actual transfer of money from a third party to the named recipient is required.

Judgments citing hundi transaction

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. No 1 Auto Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 656/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Help Line Motor Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 633/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Help Line Motor Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 622/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. K S Palanisamy, Erode

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

ITA 660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.660/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of K.S. Palanisamy, Income Tax, Vs. Kuppagounden Valasu, Central Circle - 2(4), Avalpoondurai, Erode 638 115. Chennai. [Pan: Ajipp-8193-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Dated 31.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made On Account Of Alleged Receipts From M/S. Srs Mining.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 34

held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from premises

DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Chennai, Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Pallipalayam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 629/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:628 & 629/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Income Tax, Vs. 5/6/183, Govindampalayam Central Circle - 2(2), Alampalayam, Pallipalayam 638 008. Chennai. [Pan: Abcpt-7700-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Both Dated 10.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Common Issue Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. The Ita Nos.628 & 629/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from premises ... held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from premises

DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Chennai, Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Pallipalayam

ITA 628/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:628 & 629/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Vs.5/6/183, Govindampalayam Alampalayam, Pallipalayam 638 008. [Pan: Abcpt-7700-K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 23.07.2025 04.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Both Dated 10.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from premises

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

wherein itwas held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from ... relied upon the notings of hundi in the diary seized from the premises of third party. The said noting's allegedly contained entries of hundi transactions on behalf of parties including assessee whose names were re-written in abbreviated/code words. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relying on its earlier

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3190/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

where a taxmann com 432 diary was seized seized in search of the premises of a third party party allegedly containing entries entries of hundi transactions on behalf of vari various parties including the assessee, assessee, no addition could be made based based on the said entries since the diary

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3189/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

where a taxmann com 432 diary was seized seized in search of the premises of a third party party allegedly containing entries entries of hundi transactions on behalf of vari various parties including the assessee, assessee, no addition could be made based based on the said entries since the diary

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3188/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

where a taxmann com 432 diary was seized seized in search of the premises of a third party party allegedly containing entries entries of hundi transactions on behalf of vari various parties including the assessee, assessee, no addition could be made based based on the said entries since the diary

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

High Court in the said decision has held that where in search of premises of third party, diary was seized allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of parties including assessee whose names were written in abbreviated/code words, since diary was neither found from premises of assessee

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1131/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

High Court in the said decision has held that where in search of premises of third party, diary was seized allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of parties including assessee whose names were written in abbreviated/code words, since diary was neither found from premises of assessee

Kemox Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

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

ITA 219/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainkemox Corporation Vs. Dcit-Cc-3, Thane House No. 69/100, New Room No. 12, A Wing, Mavji Compound Narpoli 6Th Floor, Ashar It 421302. Park, Thane West. Pan/Gir No. Aaffk4685A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69CSection 69D

under: We feel that one of the reasons for bringing s, 69D of the Act on the statute book is to cover the Hundi transaction in view of the wording of s. I of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now considering the present transactions as pointed out already, we find that ... that the transaction is only bilateral and not tripartite is conclusive to show that the instrument though titled as Hundi was not really a Hundi transaction The transactions are very much on the lines of promissory note where it is a bilateral transaction. It is not the form

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various pa entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the rties including the assessee, no addition could

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gopu Rajagopal, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections

ITA 1811/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 69A

from the premises of third party. The said the premises of third party. The said noting’s allegedly contained e allegedly contained entries of hundi transactions on behalf of parties including assessee whose names of hundi transactions on behalf of parties including assessee whose names of hundi transactions on behalf

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

ITA 702/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

apply wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third-party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found ... apply wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third-party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

apply wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third-party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 697/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

apply wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third-party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 696/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

apply wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third-party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found ... apply wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third-party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 695/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

apply wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third-party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found