ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

reassessment by making disallowance u/s. 43(5) r.w.s. 73 and sec.40A(2)(b) of Rs.13,89,08,810/- and excess disallowance u/s.14A of Rs. 1,04,652/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) and raised additional ground on reopening of assessment as follows:- 3 I.T.A No. 339/Ahd/2022

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial