CIT v. K. Chinnathamban

292 ITR 682Supreme Court of India2007#2231 most cited

What is CIT v. K. Chinnathamban authority for?

The expression "income" as used in Section 69A has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. The onus of proving the satisfactory source of unexplained money or deposits primarily rests on the assessee.

52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K. Chinnathamban · K. Chinnathamban · Section 69A · unexplained money · onus of proof · source of deposit · satisfactory explanation · wide meaning of income · addition under Section 69A · evidentiary burden

Also reported as

162 Taxmann 4597 SCC 390

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 131Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 115BBESection 271(1)(c)Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 110section 249(2)section 271aac(1)section 273bsection 271aacsection 271aapanchnamasection 271(1)(b)section 271asection 249penalty under section 271(1)(c)reasoned order

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Chinnathamban

SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 211/ASR/2007[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250(6)Section 263

…the addition should be made in the hands of Mr. Gurdev Singh in whose bank account, the amount has been found to be credited and in support of his argument he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K. Chinnathamban [2007] 292 ITR 682 (SC) and in the case of CIT v. Metal & Metals of India [2007] 208 CTR (P&H) 457. 23. He further argued that onus to prove the source of deposits lies on the person in whose name the deposit has been made and on the failure to explain the source of such deposits, the money will be deemed to be the income of such person u/s 69A of the Act. He fur…

VIJAY BHANDARI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-7, VAPI

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

ITA 747/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.747/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Vijay Bhandari, Vs. Ito, Mataji Enterprises Shop No. Ug- National Faceless Assessment 17, Bhilad Plaza Shopping Centre Centre, Bhilad, Bhilad - 396105 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajtpb2990E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 44ASection 68

…. The appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain with evidence that the mischief of section 68 of the Act is not attracted to the facts of his case. Useful reference be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where it was held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income. 11. We also find that the co-ordinate Bench of…

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…any other explanation or produced any new material so as to interfere with the findings of the AO, which was duly confirmed by the CIT(A). 22. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act. There is no reason…

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…any other explanation or produced any new material so as to interfere with the findings of the AO, which was duly confirmed by the CIT(A). 22. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act. There is no reason…

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…any other explanation or produced any new material so as to interfere with the findings of the AO, which was duly confirmed by the CIT(A). 22. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act. There is no reason…

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…any other explanation or produced any new material so as to interfere with the findings of the AO, which was duly confirmed by the CIT(A). 22. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act. There is no reason…

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…any other explanation or produced any new material so as to interfere with the findings of the AO, which was duly confirmed by the CIT(A). 22. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act. There is no reason…

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…any other explanation or produced any new material so as to interfere with the findings of the AO, which was duly confirmed by the CIT(A). 22. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act. There is no reason…

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…any other explanation or produced any new material so as to interfere with the findings of the AO, which was duly confirmed by the CIT(A). 22. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act. There is no reason…

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…any other explanation or produced any new material so as to interfere with the findings of the AO, which was duly confirmed by the CIT(A). 22. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K. Chinnathamban, 292 ITR 682 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court held that the onus of proving source of deposit primarily rests on person in whose name deposit appears in various banks. Since the assessee failed to show that the amount in question did not represent his income, the Department was justified in treating same as assessee’s income u/s 69A of the Act. There is no reason…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

ITA/73/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 29ASection 34

…tion to award interest including post-award interest. [Ref.: State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Private Limited, (2009) 12 SCC 1; and Indian Railway Construction Company Limited v. National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited, (2023) 7 SCC 390]. Clearly, the Deed of Settlement contains no express bar regarding interest and it was thus open to the Arbitrator to award the interest. Once interest is awarded by the Arbitrator, Section 37(1)(b) comes into play where the phrase „unless the award otherwise directs‟, qualifies the rate of post-award interest, which means that once the awar…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. ARUL RAJA, TUTICORIN

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2845/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.: 2845/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Arul Raja, Income Tax, V. 43J, Saint Peter Koil Street, Central Circle -2, Tuticorin – 628 001. Madurai – 625 002. [Pan: Aevpr-9611-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 09.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.67,96,000/- Made Towards Unexplained Money U/S.69A. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Holding That The Statement Made By The Assessee That The Source For The Cash· Was Withdrawals From Banks As A Plausible Explanation In The Absence Of Proof Evidencing The Transactions & Wrongly Observed That Burden Of Proof Shifted To The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

…in hand as per the cash book. In order to sustain the addition, the AO should have proved that the seized cash emanates from any other source with cogent and corroborative evidence. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Chinnathamban (2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC) has held that if the assessee explains the source of the money satisfactorily, the addition under Section 69A cannot be made. 6.3.7 In view of the above discussion and judicial decision relied upon, the undersigned is of the considered view that there exist no case to sustain the addition made by the AO without there being any findings that…

ARUN ASHAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6875/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nMS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 6874 & 6875/Mum/2024\nAssessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18\nArun Ashar\n101, 10th Floor\nMaktangan Sarojini Road\nSantacruz (W)\nMumbai - 400054\n[PAN: AAQPA2836A]\nअपीलार्थी/(Appellant)\nVs\nDy. Commissioner of Income\nTax, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai\nप्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent)\nAssessee by:| Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/R\nRevenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R\nसुनवाई की

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R
Section 132(4)Section 69A

…t does is that it\nembodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence which could\nbe attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfy its condition.\"\n31. The said view has been followed by this Court in CIT v. K. Chinnathamban [2007]\n162 Taxman 459/292 ITR 682/7 SCC 390. Therein the Court inter alia held:\n\"8. ... The High Court has rightly held that the expression \"income\" as used in Section\n69-A of the Act, has wide meaning which meant anything which came in or resulted in\ngain.\"\n32. It may be noticed that Section 15 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, which repealed\nthe Carriers Act, 1865, pr…

ARUN ASHAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6874/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nMS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 6874 & 6875/Mum/2024\nAssessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18\nArun Ashar\n101, 10th Floor\nMaktangan Sarojini Road\nSantacruz (W)\nMumbai - 400054\n[PAN: AAQPA2836A]\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nVs\nDy. Commissioner of Income\nTax, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai\nप्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/R\nRevenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R\nसुनवाई की

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R
Section 132(4)Section 69A

…t does is that it\nembodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence which could\nbe attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfy its condition.\"\n31. The said view has been followed by this Court in CIT v. K. Chinnathamban [2007]\n162 Taxman 459/292 ITR 682/7 SCC 390. Therein the Court inter alia held:\n\"8. The High Court has rightly held that the expression \"income\" as used in Section\n69-A of the Act, has wide meaning which meant anything which came in or resulted in\ngain.\"\n32. It may be noticed that Section 15 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, which repealed\nthe Carriers Act, 1865, provid…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/114/2023HC Delhi07 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 11(5)Section 16Section 34Section 37(2)(a)

…O.M.P. (COMM) 114/2023 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 4th August, 2025 + O.M.P. (COMM) 114/2023 M. A. ZAHID .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Navin Kumar and Ms. Rashmeet Kaur, Advocates. versus JINDAL SAW LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Preeti Goel, Mr. Anubhav Goel, Ms. Rashmi Mishra, Mr. Siddarth Jain, Ms. Lavanya Pathak and Ms. Priyanka Dhyani, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEVINE INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…is thus, submitted that once the lenders have duly confirmed the factum of unsecured loan to the appellant company, addition under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the appellant is wholly unwarranted, as held by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 292 ITR 682, CIT vs. K. Chinathamban (SC), where it has been held by their Lordships of the Apex Court "where a transaction stands confirmed by the third party of an investment no addition could possibly be made us 68 of the Act, in the hands of the assessee in whose, books of accounts credit appears" and very recently, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case…

SH. SANJAY GODHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Arises Because The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Him Against The Order Dated 20/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…n which leads to a inference that such cash was actually not available with the assessee on the date of demonetization. Accordingly relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shreelekha Banarjee Vs. CIT 49 ITR 112 and CIT Vs. K. Chinnathamban 162 Taxmann 459, Kerala High Court in case of K.V. Mathew Vs. ITO 42 Taxmann.com 571 and decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Manoj Agarwal Vs. DCIT 113 ITD 377 held that under the preponderance standard burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true which is 1…

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…dences and along with the reasoning as to why such evidences could not be furnished before the assessing officer and the same can be admitted only if found admissible as per the law. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chainnathampan (2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC), the onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rests on the person in whose name the deposit appears in various banks. (xx) In the facts of the case, on consideration of the submissions of the appellant, without accepting the submissions of the appellant, it is hereby observed that even though the appellant as per his own claim was per…

PARESHKUMAR PUNAMCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1096/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: CA Preyashi TatedFor Respondent: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2011-12 Pareshkumar The Income-tax Punamchand Shah, Officer, C/o. MS Chhajed & Ward-2(2)(4), Co,CA, “Kamal Aayakar Bhawan, Shanti” Nr. Sardar v. Vejalpur, Patel Statue, Anandnagar- Ahmedabad- Prahaladpur Road, 380014. Ahmedabad- Gujarat 380015, Gujarat PAN:AZFPS0232A (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: CA Preyashi Tated Revenue by: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr. D.R Date of hearing : 08.07.2024 & 25-07-2024 : 16-08-2024 Date of pronouncement आदेश आदेश/ORDER आदेश आदेश This appeal in I…

MOHD UMEED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 327/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 694Section 69A

…open to the revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. The AO also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. K Chinnathamban (SC) 292 ITR 682 wherein it was held that cash deposits in the bank should be explained by the assessee otherwise it is unexplained income/money. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,07,4.000/-made by the Assessing Officer. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Heard the ar…

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. K. Chinnathamban (292 ITR 682) — Cited in 52 Judgments | BharatTax