← All Phrases

“incriminating material”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A8,981 judgments

The decision most relied on for incriminating material is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on incriminating material

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT
137 ITD 287 · 2012 · ITAT
907
citing judgments

In non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer can make additions under section 153A based on books of accounts or documents found during a search but not produced during the original assessment, provided such material is incriminating.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.
387 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
670
citing judgments

Assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during the search that substantiates the additions. This principle applies even to completed assessments where no additional income is disclosed.

Judgments citing incriminating material

Kamla Landmarc Estate, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1608/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1608 & 1612/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2012-13) Kamlalandmarc Estate बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk1567A (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Shri Rashmikant Modi Assessee By: Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 07-01-2019 For A.Ys. 2008- 09 & Ay. 2012-13. Since Issues Involved Are Common, Both These Appeals For The Two Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose These Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37Section 68

also rejected plea of the assessee (legal ground) that these additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain was enough evidence to incriminate the assessee and therefore upheld the validity of the above ... made in the unabated AYs, particularly when the A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2012-13 KamlaLandmarc Estate statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found in the course of search. For this, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of another coordinate Bench in the case

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1286/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

also rejected plea of the assessee (legal ground) that these additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain was enough evidence to incriminate the assessee and therefore upheld the validity of the above ... constitute incriminating evidence to justify the additions made in the unabated AYs, particularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found in the course of search. For this, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of another coordinate Bench in the case

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1285/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

also rejected plea of the assessee (legal ground) that these additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain was enough evidence to incriminate the assessee and therefore upheld the validity of the above ... constitute incriminating evidence to justify the additions made in the unabated AYs, particularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found in the course of search. For this, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of another coordinate Bench in the case

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1284/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

also rejected plea of the assessee (legal ground) that these additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain was enough evidence to incriminate the assessee and therefore upheld the validity of the above ... constitute incriminating evidence to justify the additions made in the unabated AYs, particularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found in the course of search. For this, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of another coordinate Bench in the case

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Cirle-(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1283/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

also rejected plea of the assessee (legal ground) that these additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain was enough evidence to incriminate the assessee and therefore upheld the validity of the above ... constitute incriminating evidence to justify the additions made in the unabated AYs, particularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found in the course of search. For this, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of another coordinate Bench in the case

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1282/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

also rejected plea of the assessee (legal ground) that these additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain was enough evidence to incriminate the assessee and therefore upheld the validity of the above ... constitute incriminating evidence to justify the additions made in the unabated AYs, particularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found in the course of search. For this, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of another coordinate Bench in the case

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1281/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

also rejected plea of the assessee (legal ground) that these additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain was enough evidence to incriminate the assessee and therefore upheld the validity of the above ... constitute incriminating evidence to justify the additions made in the unabated AYs, particularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found in the course of search. For this, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of another coordinate Bench in the case

Kamla Ankur, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1280/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

also rejected plea of the assessee (legal ground) that these additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri Jitendra Jain was enough evidence to incriminate the assessee and therefore upheld the validity of the above ... constitute incriminating evidence to justify the additions made in the unabated AYs, particularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found in the course of search. For this, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of another coordinate Bench in the case

Nilesh M. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5110/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5110/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5111/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5112/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5113/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5114/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5115/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5116/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh/ ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Para 3(A)(c) below. 2. Disallowance of loss of Bharat Disallowance not justified in the Enterprises — INR 7,76,474/- absence of any incriminating material found to suggest that the sales and purchases are not genuine. Kindly refer our detailed submission laid down in Para 3(A)(c) below ... below. 2. Disallowance of loss on sale of Additions not justified in the investment— INR 23,00,000/- absence of any incriminating material found to suggest that the investment activities are not genuine. Kindly refer our detailed submission laid down in Para 3(A)(c) below

Jugraj Pannalal Rathod, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cen.Cir. 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8501/MUM/2011[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.8498/मुं/2011 िन.व.2006-07) आ.अ.सं.8499/मुं/2011 िन.व.2007-08) आ.अ.सं.8500/मुं/2011 िन.व.2008-09) आ.अ.सं.8501/मुं/2011 िन.व.2009-10) Shri Jugraj Pannalal Rathod, 3-A, Jain Hind Building, 4Th Floor, Block No.2, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aexpr5866G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit, Cc-33, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Sh. M. B. Sanghvi & P.D. Sanghvi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Anchal Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Four Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] For The आ.अ.सं. 8498 से 8501/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07 To 2009-10) I.T.A No.8498 To 8501/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2006-07 To 2009-10) Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, Respectively. All The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10.10.2011. Since, The Facts Germane To The Issue Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical & Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order. 2. Sh. M. B. Sanghvi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Appeal In Ita No. 8498/Mum/2011 For A.Y. 2006-07 May Be Taken As Lead Appeal For Culling Out The Facts. The Facts In The Other Appeals Are Identical.

For Appellant: S/Sh. M. B. Sanghvi & P.D. SanghviFor Respondent: Sh. Anchal Sharma, CIT-DR

further failed to appreciate that addition in assessment u/s.153C of the Act ought to have been made on the basis of evidences / incriminating material and not merely on surmises and conjectures and assumptions and presumptions and hence, the estimated ad hoc addition made of Rs.7 lacs is without any justification ... liable to be deleted.” 7. We find that no incriminating material was found during the survey action on the assessee. The addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been made merely on presumption. The Revenue in the case of Auro Gold had made addition

Jugraj Pannalal Rathod, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cen.Cir. 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8500/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.8498/मुं/2011 िन.व.2006-07) आ.अ.सं.8499/मुं/2011 िन.व.2007-08) आ.अ.सं.8500/मुं/2011 िन.व.2008-09) आ.अ.सं.8501/मुं/2011 िन.व.2009-10) Shri Jugraj Pannalal Rathod, 3-A, Jain Hind Building, 4Th Floor, Block No.2, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aexpr5866G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit, Cc-33, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Sh. M. B. Sanghvi & P.D. Sanghvi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Anchal Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Four Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] For The आ.अ.सं. 8498 से 8501/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07 To 2009-10) I.T.A No.8498 To 8501/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2006-07 To 2009-10) Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, Respectively. All The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10.10.2011. Since, The Facts Germane To The Issue Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical & Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order. 2. Sh. M. B. Sanghvi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Appeal In Ita No. 8498/Mum/2011 For A.Y. 2006-07 May Be Taken As Lead Appeal For Culling Out The Facts. The Facts In The Other Appeals Are Identical.

For Appellant: S/Sh. M. B. Sanghvi & P.D. SanghviFor Respondent: Sh. Anchal Sharma, CIT-DR

further failed to appreciate that addition in assessment u/s.153C of the Act ought to have been made on the basis of evidences / incriminating material and not merely on surmises and conjectures and assumptions and presumptions and hence, the estimated ad hoc addition made of Rs.7 lacs is without any justification ... liable to be deleted.” 7. We find that no incriminating material was found during the survey action on the assessee. The addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been made merely on presumption. The Revenue in the case of Auro Gold had made addition

Jugraj Pannalal Rathod, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cen.Cir. 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8499/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.8498/मुं/2011 िन.व.2006-07) आ.अ.सं.8499/मुं/2011 िन.व.2007-08) आ.अ.सं.8500/मुं/2011 िन.व.2008-09) आ.अ.सं.8501/मुं/2011 िन.व.2009-10) Shri Jugraj Pannalal Rathod, 3-A, Jain Hind Building, 4Th Floor, Block No.2, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aexpr5866G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit, Cc-33, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Sh. M. B. Sanghvi & P.D. Sanghvi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Anchal Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Four Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] For The आ.अ.सं. 8498 से 8501/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07 To 2009-10) I.T.A No.8498 To 8501/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2006-07 To 2009-10) Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, Respectively. All The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10.10.2011. Since, The Facts Germane To The Issue Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical & Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order. 2. Sh. M. B. Sanghvi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Appeal In Ita No. 8498/Mum/2011 For A.Y. 2006-07 May Be Taken As Lead Appeal For Culling Out The Facts. The Facts In The Other Appeals Are Identical.

For Appellant: S/Sh. M. B. Sanghvi & P.D. SanghviFor Respondent: Sh. Anchal Sharma, CIT-DR

further failed to appreciate that addition in assessment u/s.153C of the Act ought to have been made on the basis of evidences / incriminating material and not merely on surmises and conjectures and assumptions and presumptions and hence, the estimated ad hoc addition made of Rs.7 lacs is without any justification ... liable to be deleted.” 7. We find that no incriminating material was found during the survey action on the assessee. The addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been made merely on presumption. The Revenue in the case of Auro Gold had made addition

Jugraj Pannalal Rathod, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cen.Cir. 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8498/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.8498/मुं/2011 िन.व.2006-07) आ.अ.सं.8499/मुं/2011 िन.व.2007-08) आ.अ.सं.8500/मुं/2011 िन.व.2008-09) आ.अ.सं.8501/मुं/2011 िन.व.2009-10) Shri Jugraj Pannalal Rathod, 3-A, Jain Hind Building, 4Th Floor, Block No.2, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aexpr5866G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit, Cc-33, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Sh. M. B. Sanghvi & P.D. Sanghvi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Anchal Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Four Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] For The आ.अ.सं. 8498 से 8501/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07 To 2009-10) I.T.A No.8498 To 8501/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2006-07 To 2009-10) Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, Respectively. All The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10.10.2011. Since, The Facts Germane To The Issue Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical & Identical Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order. 2. Sh. M. B. Sanghvi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Appeal In Ita No. 8498/Mum/2011 For A.Y. 2006-07 May Be Taken As Lead Appeal For Culling Out The Facts. The Facts In The Other Appeals Are Identical.

For Appellant: S/Sh. M. B. Sanghvi & P.D. SanghviFor Respondent: Sh. Anchal Sharma, CIT-DR

further failed to appreciate that addition in assessment u/s.153C of the Act ought to have been made on the basis of evidences / incriminating material and not merely on surmises and conjectures and assumptions and presumptions and hence, the estimated ad hoc addition made of Rs.7 lacs is without any justification ... liable to be deleted.” 7. We find that no incriminating material was found during the survey action on the assessee. The addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been made merely on presumption. The Revenue in the case of Auro Gold had made addition