How many judgments cite CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull?

525 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 148.

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 366,470 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

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 148 Section 69C Section 133(6)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement dumb documents creditworthiness of the creditor bogus long term capital gain section 132(4a)section 292c section 132(4)loose papers addition under section 68 section 10(38)section 127 on-money

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

M/S Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2193/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…cates non-satisfaction of the AO. Since, it is the assessee who alleges the apparent is not real, therefore, the onus lies on assessee to prove non-satisfaction of the AO was not there. The reliance is placed on the ratio of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC).” 8. ITA No. 2194 - AY 2008-09 : The return of income was filed at Rs. 10,627,057/-, whereas the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act at an income of Rs. 12,427,175/- after making the following additions/disallowances: i. On account of alleged capital expenses claimed as revenue expenses - Rs. 418,145/- ii. Disallowan…

M/S Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2192/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1943/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…source of source or the origin of origin. Reference may be made to the decisions in S. Hastimal vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273(Mad); Tola Ram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 4 AY: 2006-07 (Cal.)]. (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Gau.); CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); Sarogi Credit Corpn. Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat); CIT Vs. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd.(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) & Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). In this regard, it is important to take note of the judgment in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram (Supra) holding that the burden is on the department to show that the money be longed…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Agrawal & Pavan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Shukla

Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)

…t if assessee is unable to satisfy the AO as to the source from which depositor has derived the money which he has advanced to assessee, no addition can be made and for this purpose reliance was placed on the following decisions :- Daulatram Rawatmull v/s CIT 87 ITR 349 (S.C.) Sarogi Credit Corporation v/s CIT 103 ITR 344 (Pat) Tolaram Daga v/s CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam) ITO v/s. Suresh Kalmadi ITA No.764 (Pune) 1985 - Page 955 BCA January 89 Held the assessee is under no obligation to show source of the source for loans. It is immaterial & even if creditors have shown exact amount of received on the date of advancem…

ITO Ward 17 (4) vs. Vital Communication Ltd

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2448/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 142(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 Income Tax Officer, vs. M/s Vital Communication Ltd., Ward 17(4), New Delhi 606- Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (PAN:AAACV-2016-L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, Advs. Date of Hearing : 17-05-2016 Date of Order : 15-06-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. This Appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…made on adhoc basis . It is well founded proposition that what is apparent is real and the allegation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 rais…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2202/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…evidence on record to establish that the money received in the shape of share application money was actually assessee's own money particularly when the assessee has complied with all the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 wherein it is held as under: The onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. As it was the department which claimed that the amount of fixed deposit receipt belonged to the respondent firm even though the receipt had been issued in the name of B, the burden laid on the department to prove that the respon…

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2199/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2198/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2225/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2009-10 Dy.Cit, Central Circle 1 Vs. Piyush Developers P.Ltd. Faridabad A 16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op.Industrial Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi Pan: Aaecp 2788 B & Ay: 2009-10 Dy.Cit, C.C.1 Vs. Ridge Housing India Pvt.Ltd. Faridbad A 16/B1, Mohan Coop Indl.Road New Delhi Pan: Aadcr 3225 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: None

…e false. Therefore, in such circumstances there was heavy onus on the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise which has not been discharged by him and on the other hand initial onus on the assessee has been discharged. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Daulat Ram's case 87 ITR 349 has held that the onus to prove that the apparent was not real was on the party who claimed it to be so. Thus the onus was. heavily on the Assessing Officer in this case. The Assessing Officer has also mentioned the fact of making certain SP9t. enquires which according to him have revealed that parties M/s Jai Ambe Trading Company and M/s Shree Ga…

Parmanand K Hinduja, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1049/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1049/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Parmanand K. Hinduja, Asst. Comm. Of Income बनाम/ 402, Banswani Tower, Tax – Circle – 2, V. Near Corporation Bank, Mohan Plaza, Ist Floor, Municipal Road, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan (West). Dist. Thane – 401003. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacph9702N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…J. Manghirmalani HUF v. ITO, 67 ITD 289 (Mum) xi) J.S. Hastimal v. CIT, 49 ITR 273 (Madras) xii) Rohini Builders v. DCIT 256 ITR 360 xiii) Dimco Silk Mills v. ITO, ITAT Ahd. Bench xiv) Micro land v. ACIT 67 ITD 446 (Bangalore) xv) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC) xvi) Kalwa Devadettam v. Union of India, 49 ITR 165 (SC) xvii) ACIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) xviii) CIT v. Bedi & Company Pvt. Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC) xix) Kirloskar Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, 67 ITD 504 xx) ACIT v. Govindram Agarwal, 76 ITD 120 (Calcutta) xxi) Mola Bux v. ITO, 51 TTJ 1 (JP) xxii) CIT v. Hiralal Ch…

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S M/S Exide Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1347/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri Anup Sinha, ACA &For Respondent: None appeared

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 43B

…umption of law is that what is apparent is real unless the contrary is proved and the burden to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. Our view finds support from the following decisions :- • CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT reported in (1982) 135 ITR 414 (Bom) 10 -C-AM M/s. Exide Industries Ltd We hold that the disallowance of interest has been made by the Learned AO merely based on surmise and conjecture. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the Learned CITA in this regard. Accordi…

Kamlesh S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1475/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer & The Accounts Of The Assessee Are Audited One, Therefore, The Addition Is Purely On The Basis Guess Work. Our Attention Was Invited To Exhibit A (Pages 1 & 2) & Exhibit D Containing Ledger Of Transportation, Octroi & Staff Welfare Expenses.

…ue of proving that the transactions were bogus, it was contended that burden is upon the taxing authority for which reliance was placed upon the following decisions. 5 Kamlesh S. Mehta i. Kalwa Devadattam vs UOI 49 ITR 165 (SC) ii. CIT vs Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii. CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) On violation of principle of natural justice, reliance was placed upon the decision in Tin Box Company vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC). 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR defended the addition by inviting out attention to the finding contained in the assessment order as well as the impugned order…

Hitendra M Ghosh, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5347/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hitendra M. Ghosh, Ito, 28, Veena Beena, Gr. Fl. Ward-19(1)(3), बनाम/ Opp. Bandra Station, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400050 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Acmpg7670A

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

…so CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the Revenue. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious 5 Hitendra M. Ghosh construction of…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. E.I.H. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- ITA Nos. 2182/Kol/06, 57, 1876 & 1846/Kol/07, 196 & 299/Kol/2010 DCIT,Cir-8, Kol Vs. M/s. E I H Ltd 18 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 rais…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2227/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 2227/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-I, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Operative Faridabad Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv2714R Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA Nos. 2227/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-I, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Faridabad Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCV2714R Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 12.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Amar Ujala Publications Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4166/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M. Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 1(1) Vs. Amar Ujala Publications Ltd. Room No. 390, C.R.Bldg. 2/16, Ansari Road New Delhi Daryaganj New Delhi Pan: Aadca 0275 H

For Appellant: - Shri KK Jaiswal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: - Sh. Ved Jain, Adv

Section 80Section 80J

…t the assessee has sold much more what has been shown by the assessee as sales. This is the settled law that apparent is real. Onus is on the person who alleges apparent is not real, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Rawatmul Daulat Ram, 87 ITR 349. Therefore, we are of the view that heavy onus lies on the revenue to prove that the sales return shown by the assessee are not the sales return and the assessee has sold the newspapers much more than what has been shown as sold so that it can be said that the income to that extent has accrued to the assessee during the year. Once the onus gets sh…

Late Sri. K.B. Khaleel, Hassan vs. ITO, Hassan

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 239/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 131Section 68

…sessee to explain the source of source. According to him, the law is well settled that assessee cannot be called upon to explain the source of source. In this regard, reliance was placed by him on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC). He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Kanhaiyalal Jangid v. ACIT, 217 CTR 345 (Raj), wherein it was held that once the assessee files confirmation from the creditor and produces the creditor before the AO, and where the creditor confirms giving of loan to the assessee; no addition u/s. 68 could be made…

Sarita Aggarwal

ITA/133/2003HC Delhi04 Feb 2015

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Who By Order Dated 27Th February, 1998, Deleted The Addition After Taking On Record Additional Evidence. Revenue On Appeal, Has Succeeded Before 2015:Dhc:1152-Db

Section 122Section 260A

…should be accepted or not is not to be examined factually but having regard to test of human probabilities and normal course of conduct. Reference can be made to CIT versus Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), CIT versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull, (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) and other cases referred to in CIT versus Nova Promoters and 2015:DHC:1152-DB ITA 133/2003 Page 10 of 14 Finlease Private Limited, (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del). In these cases, it has been observed that what is apparent must be considered real until it is shown…