CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

72 ITR 194Supreme Court of India1969#292 most cited

What is CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad authority for?

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

272

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad · 72 ITR 194 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · onus of proof · estimated assessment · source of income · AO burden of proof · assessee's burden · income finalized on estimation · addition u/s 68

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 69ASection 145(3)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 106section 66creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofpaper companysection 31source of sourcesection 251(2)share capital and share premiumrejection of books of accountaddition u/s 68section 145(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

Manisha Bipin Bhinsara, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), V. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amlpb7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri V.S. Jadhav,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s while arriving at the conclusion as set out above: a) Aluminium Small Industries Limited v. ITO (2006) 103 ITD 142(Kol.) b) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT , 107 ITR 938(SC) c) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT , 50 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad , 72 ITR 194(SC) e) Sumati Dayal v. CIT , 80 Taxman 89(SC) f) CIT v. M Ganapathi Mudaliar , 53 ITR 623(SC) g) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT 34 ITR 807(SC) h) CIT v. Calcutta Agency Limited, 19 ITR 191(SC) i) CIT v. Transport Corporation of India Limited 256 ITR 701(AP HC) j) CIT v. Imperial Chemicals Industries India Private Limited 74 ITR 17 ITA 4512/Mum…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ated). The Revenue in fact is not obliged to prove the nature of the receipt or to locate its source, so that, where not satisfactorily explained as to its nature and/or source, it could be deemed as income (refer: CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC)). In the view of the tribunal, this was a matter of fact, which had to be established by definite material/evidence, viz. the copy of the bank accounts, in view of the definite material with the Revenue (in the form of TIs), and which therefore would presumably be considered as having been gi…

Shri Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. Dy.CIT.C.C.2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ated). The Revenue in fact is not obliged to prove the nature of the receipt or to locate its source, so that, where not satisfactorily explained as to its nature and/or source, it could be deemed as income (refer: CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC)). In the view of the tribunal, this was a matter of fact, which had to be established by definite material/evidence, viz. the copy of the bank accounts, in view of the definite material with the Revenue (in the form of TIs), and which therefore would presumably be considered as having been gi…

DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Faisal Abbas, Pune

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6934/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri A. K. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri K. Gopal
Section 143(3)Section 68

…is not obliged to locate the source of the receipt and, as such, there is no further burden on the Revenue to show that the income is from a particular source (refer: Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977]107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC)). At the same time, however, the word used in section 68 is ‘may’, and not ‘shall’. As such, the assessment of income may not necessarily follow an unsatisfactory explanation with regard to a credit in accounts, and the Assessing Officer (A.O.) is obliged to consider, 4 Dy. CIT vs. Fa…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Maf Academy P. Ltd

ITA-341/2012HC Delhi28 Nov 2013
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A(1)Section 68

…ilarly observations were made in CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), inter alia holding that it was not necessary for the Revenue to locate the exact source. This principle was reiterated in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the contention that the Assessing Officer should indicate the source of income before it was taxable, was described as an incorrect legal position. Thus when there is an unexplained cash credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it was income of the assessee and no further burden lies on him to show the source…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Maf Academy P. Ltd

ITA/341/2012HC Delhi28 Nov 2013
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A(1)Section 68

…ilarly observations were made in CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), inter alia holding that it was not necessary for the Revenue to locate the exact source. This principle was reiterated in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the contention that the Assessing Officer should indicate the source of income before it was taxable, was described as an incorrect legal position. Thus when there is an unexplained cash credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it was income of the assessee and no further burden lies on him to show the source…

CIT vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt Ltd

ITA/1019/2011HC Delhi22 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 68

…r. Similarly observations weie made in CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), inter alia holding that itwas not necessaiy for the Revenue to locate the exact source. This principle was reiterated in CIT V5.- Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the contention that the Assessing Officer should indicate the source ofincome before itwas taxable, was described as an incorrect legal position. Thus when there is an unexplained cash credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it was income ofthe assessee and no further burden lies on him to show the source. In Yadu Ha…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt Ltd

ITA/1018/2011HC Delhi22 Nov 2013
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 68

…milarly observations were made in CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), inter alia holding that it was not necessary for the Revenue to locate the exact source. This principle was reiterated in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the contention that the Assessing Officer should indicate the source of income before it was taxable, was described as an incorrect legal position. Thus when there is an unexplained cash credit, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it was income of the assessee and no further burden lies on him to show the source.…

CIT vs. Independent Media Pvt Ltd

In the result the substantial question of law is answered in the negative, in

ITA/456/2011HC Delhi20 Jul 2012

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ For Short). It Is Directed Against The Order Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal‟ For Short) Dated 11.03.2010 Passed In Ita No.470/Del/2009. 2. The Following Substantial Question Of Law Is Framed: - “Whether The Tribunal Is Right In Law In Remitting The Issue Relating To The Addition Of `2,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Share Application Money To The Assessing Officer With Directions To Verify The Source Of Money Of The Shareholders & Make Additions In The Hands Of Persons Who Provided The Monies?”

Section 148Section 260A

…und for ITA 456/2011 Page 7 of 8 interfering with that finding, and these appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs.” A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC). 12. In the light of the aforesaid exposition of the legal position the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be upheld. The Tribunal, however, may be justified in directing the Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity to the assessee of cross-examining the persons who had allegedly given statements before the Investigation Wing implicati…

CIT vs. Independent Media Pvt Ltd

In the result the substantial question of law is answered in the negative, in

ITA - 456 / 2011HC Delhi20 Jul 2012

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ For Short). It Is Directed Against The Order Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal‟ For Short) Dated 11.03.2010 Passed In Ita No.470/Del/2009. 2. The Following Substantial Question Of Law Is Framed: - “Whether The Tribunal Is Right In Law In Remitting The Issue Relating To The Addition Of `2,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Share Application Money To The Assessing Officer With Directions To Verify The Source Of Money Of The Shareholders & Make Additions In The Hands Of Persons Who Provided The Monies?”

Section 148Section 260A

…:4456-DB ITA 456/2011 Page 7 of 8 interfering with that finding, and these appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs.” A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC). 12. In the light of the aforesaid exposition of the legal position the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be upheld. The Tribunal, however, may be justified in directing the Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity to the assessee of cross-examining the persons who had allegedly given statements before the Investigation Wing implicati…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA-783/2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…e plenty of decisions supporting this stand of the Revenue and some of these are as under: a. Govindrajuly\u Murlidhar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) b. Lakhmichand vs. CIT, 35 ITR 416 (SC) c. Kalekhan vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) d. CIT vs. Visvanath Parsad, 72 ITR 194 (SC) The learned counsel also contended that the plea of the assessee that, since the transactions were through cheque, the same are genuine, does not hold good and tenable. He referred to the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Precession Finance Ltd., 208 ITR 465 (CAL). His further submission was that the onus on the ass…

Commissioner of Income T Ax Delhi II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA - 783 / 2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…e plenty of decisions supporting this stand of the Revenue and some of these are as under: a. Govindrajuly\u Murlidhar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) b. Lakhmichand vs. CIT, 35 ITR 416 (SC) c. Kalekhan vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) d. CIT vs. Visvanath Parsad, 72 ITR 194 (SC) The learned counsel also contended that the plea of the assessee that, since the transactions were through cheque, the same are genuine, does not hold good and tenable. He referred to the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Precession Finance Ltd., 208 ITR 465 (CAL). His further submission was that the onus on the ass…