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

Cmr Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 869/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

…n our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Cmr Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 868/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

…n our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Cmr Technical Education Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 867/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

…n our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Cmr Technical Education Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 866/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

…n our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

K M R Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 865/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

K M R Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 864/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Marri Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 863/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 861/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 860/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

DCIT- Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata vs. Vikrma Impex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 317/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…essee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the lender M/s. Fast Glow Distributors. The assessee responded to the show cause noti…

DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata vs. Vikrma Impex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…essee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the lender M/s. Fast Glow Distributors. The assessee responded to the show cause noti…

Anand Mellaram Issrani, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69C

…ee to such alleged manipulation. (Umacharan linking the assessee to such alleged manipulation. linking the assessee to such alleged manipulation. Shaw & Bros. v. CIT, 37 ITR 271 (SC); , 37 ITR 271 (SC); Daulat Ram Rawatmull v. CIT Daulat Ram Rawatmull v. CIT, 87 ITR 349 (SC)). Swati Bajaj Swati Bajaj (Cal HC, 2022) upholds additions in (Cal HC, 2022) upholds additions in penny-stock cases where the stock cases where the price surge is demonstrably price surge is demonstrably manipulated and the assessee fails to offer a and the assessee fails to offer a plausible, fact plausible, fact-specific explanation. The In…

Madhav University, Pindwara, Sirohi vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 789/JODH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α No.789 &790/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Madhav University Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Exemption, Jaipur Pindwara, Madhav Hills, Nh 27, Vpo Bharja, Pindwara, Sirohi Rajasthan-307023 Pan: Aasam7855L Shri Amit Kothari Shri M.K. Jain, Cit(Dr.) Present For Assessee Present For Revenue Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Bench: The Instant Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (For Brevity, 'Ld.Cit(E)'] Order Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') & Order Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Date Of Orders 30/09/2024. 2. Act Both The Appeals Related To Registration Under Section 12Ab& 80G Of The

Section 11Section 12ASection 3(2)Section 80Section 80G(5)

…te solely to sponsoring trust's and are not related to the appellant. Madhav University is operationally and legally distinct. 7.2. No operational or financial involvement of Madhav University; burden is on Revenue to prove nexus (CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349, SC). 8. Charitable Activities Evidence: 8.1. Detailed records of scholarships, outreach, infrastructure support, and community programs have been submitted. 8.2. Free education to 100 plus poor and deserving girl students Office submitting during the proceedings. 8.3. Providing free education to about 70 Special Privileged Students. 8.4. Concessi…

Mukesh Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Reopening The Assessment & Without Independent Application Of Mind. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & The Consequent Reassessment Order So Passed Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…res and surmises and therefore no addition can be 24 ITA No. 620/JP/2025 Mukesh Jain HUF vs. DCIT made on the said basis in the hands of the Assessee and the Assessee places reliance upon the following judicial decisions: CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (1973) 87 ITR 349 "...onus of proving what is apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. There should be direct nexus between the conclusions of fact arrived at, or inferred, and the primary facts upon which the conclusion is based. When irrelevant consideration and extraneous materials form the substratum of an order, or the authority has proceed…

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

…ad More [1969] 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 CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmal [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) further throws light on the issue. 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 transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the evidence…

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

…n 10." We submit that in the case of Labh Chand Bohra vs. Income-tax Officer [2010] 189 Taxman 141 (Rajasthan) [ Refer compilation of case law page no 110-114], the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held as under The judgment of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) is the authority for the proposition that the assessee cannot be required to prove the source of the source. It was precisely held in Daulat Ram Rawat Mull's case (supra) that the fact that lender has not been able to give satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the fund lent by him, would not be decisive, even of the matter, as to w…

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…he decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) wherein it was held that ‘no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures'. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, ‘the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1012/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2016-17) & Assistant Commissioner Vs. Choice Equity Broking of Income Tax, Central Private Limited Circle 6(4), Mumbai Plot No.156-158, Sunil Patodia Tower, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 099 PAN/GIR No.AADCC8390B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Akash Kumar Revenue by Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR & Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/07/2025…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5687/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2016-17) & Assistant Commissioner Vs. Choice Equity Broking of Income Tax, Central Private Limited Circle 6(4), Mumbai Plot No.156-158, Sunil Patodia Tower, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 099 PAN/GIR No.AADCC8390B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Akash Kumar Revenue by Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR & Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/07/2025…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 6(4), Mumbai vs. Choice Equity Broking Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5686/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148oSection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2016-17) & Assistant Commissioner Vs. Choice Equity Broking of Income Tax, Central Private Limited Circle 6(4), Mumbai Plot No.156-158, Sunil Patodia Tower, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 099 PAN/GIR No.AADCC8390B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Akash Kumar Revenue by Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR & Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/07/2025…