CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

87 ITR 349Supreme Court of India1973#124 most cited

What is CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull authority for?

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull · 87 ITR 349 · Section 68 · Section 69A · onus of proof · burden of proof · apparent is not real · genuineness of transaction · cash credit · unexplained money · suspicion not evidence · sufficiency of evidence

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

Shri Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge, Wardha vs. Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir. 1(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 37/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Vs. The Dcit Thru Legal Heir Vilas Vasantrao Ghonge Central Circle 1 (1) Gharpure Layout, Nagri Bank Colony, Nagpur Warda Pan No.:Aiwpg 6212 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Dated 21/12/2015 In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-3/242/2013-14 For Asstt. Year 2011-12. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant For Asstt. Year 2011-12 Are As Under:- “A) The Learned A.O. Was Wrong & Unjustified In Making An Addition Of Samarpan Nidhi Of Rs.20,79,936/- To The Total Income Of The Undersigned Assessee As Net Business / Vocational Income. B) The Learned A.O. Was Wrong Arbitrary & Unjustified In Making An Addition Of Receipts Of B.S.Y. Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Nyas Of Rs.5,21,349/- To The Total Income Of The Undersigned Assessee On The Presumption That Those Receipts Belong To The Undersigned.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…me of trust belongs to appellant or is being used for his personal benefits. It is settled proposition of law that apparent is real. This proposition is in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported at 87 ITR 349(SC). Returns of trust have been filed upto Asstt. Year 2009-10 along with financial statement much before the date of search and thus observation of CIT(A) that income shown by the trust is after thought in view of search is unjustified. In the case of appellant upto earlier assessment years pending appeals have been settled by filing application…