CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull

53 ITR 574Supreme Court of India1964#1178 most cited

What is CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made based merely on suspicion; concrete evidence is required to substantiate such claims by the tax authorities.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Daulatram Rawatmull · CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull · Section 68 · Section 143(3) · suspicion vs evidence · addition without evidence · unexplained cash credits · unsecured loans · burden of proof · genuineness of transaction · no addition on mere suspicion · sufficiency of evidence

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. VAIBHAV GINNING SPINNING MILL PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

In the result, the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 826/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 826/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Dcit Vs. Vaibhav Ginning & Spinning Central Circle-2, Rajkot Mill Private Limited “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, National Highway – 27, Gondal Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Highway At Bhojpara, Gondal, Gujarat - 360311 Pan/Gir No.: Aadcv4397D (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/04/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…ises in the mind for the genuineness of the transaction on hand as discussed above. 10.2 However, it is the settled law, a suspicion cannot take the place of the evidence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 53 ITR 574, the relevant extract reads as under. "The circumstances relied upon by Mr. Sastri do raise suspicion, but suspicion cannot take the place of evidence." 10.3 For the sake of repetition, we also note that indeed, the activity of withdrawing the cash, keeping the same as it is and redeposit the same in the bank after considerable period is very unus…

SURENDER SINGH SANGWAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, SONIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…any evidence showing that in fact, appellant has given cash in lieu of unsecured loan taken, merely on the basis of suspicion, no addition can be made for which reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Daulatram Rawatmull, (1964) 53 ITR 574.” 16. The judgements referred by Ld.AR of NRA Iron and Steel is distinguishable on facts in that case, detailed enquiry was made by the AO and assessee has failed to file any details before the lower authorities however, in the instant case, the assessee has already filed all the relevant details to discharge the burden casted upon it u/s 68 of t…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. AKASH DEEP SETHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and at the same time, the cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 4973/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi. B-236, Derawal Nagar, Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) Co No.26/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4973/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Akash Deep Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-236, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Ms. Kirti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 16.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…lanation to hold that it was income. If, however, the evidence was unconvincing, then such rejection could be made. The Department cannot by merely rejecting good explanation unreasonably, convert good proof into no proof. In CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC), the principles governing reference under section66 of the 1922 Act, similar to section 256 of 1961 Act were discussed and it was held that the High Court has no power under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is in parimateria with section256(2) of the Act, to call upon the Appellate Tribunal to state a case, if there was…

Showing 120 of 97 · Page 1 of 5