CIT v. K. Chinnathamban

Manoj Jayaswal, Ashok Nagar vs. ACIT(OSD), Ashok Nagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

…osit is out of 'past savings' from legal profession practised by the appellant. Onus to prove the source of cash deposit is on the assessee by adducing necessary evidences, which he failed to do so. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s K Chinnathamban 292 ITR 682 (SC) has held that cash deposits in Bank should be explained by the assessee, otherwise, it is unexplained income u/s 69 of the Act. Therefore, I donot find any infirmity in the decision of ld AO especially when assessee has failed to discharge his onus of proving the source of cash deposits by furnishing corroborative evidences in support of his…

M/S D. N. Singh Through Partner Dudheshwar Nath Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

…eriod of twenty-four hours of service of notice or any lesser period as may be mutually agreed to by and between the common carrier and the consignor. (2) In the case of an unclaimed consignment under sub-section (1), the common carrier may, 7 (2007) 7 SCC 390 26 (a) if such consignment is perishable in nature, have the right to sell the consignment; or (b) if such consignment is not perishable in nature, cause a notice to be served upon the consignee or upon the consignor if the consignee is not available, requiring him to remove the goods within a period of fifteen days from the da…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur vs. Prakash Chand Lunia (D) Thr Lrs

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

…Page 11 of 27 entitled to claim value of such gold as a trading loss. 3.3 Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG has further relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT, (1988) 3 SCC 588 and CIT v. K Chinnathamban, (2007) 7 SCC 390, on onus of proving ownership being on the person who denies ownership and who is in possession. It is submitted that ownership of confiscated silver fell on the Respondent-Assessee in the present case which he failed to discharge and which accordingly rendered the tax authorities’ concurrent findings on his ownership to be valid. It is subm…

Kishorbhai Chhaganbhai Andipara, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: The Income Tax Officer, Rajkot. As The Net Taxable Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Was Below The Basic Exemption Limit, The Assessee Has Not Filed The Return Of Income U/S. 139 Of The Act.

…e, cash was deposited in bank account of the assessee, onus was upon the assessee to explain nature and source of said cash deposit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of K Chinnathambam (2007) 162 taxmann.com 459 (SC)/(2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC)/(2007) 211 CTR 86 (SC) wherein, it is held that the onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rest on the person in whose name the deposit appears in various banks. As the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof, the A.O. is right in his action to treat the said cash deposit as unexplained. The Ground of appeal is dismissed.”…

Dwaraka Prasad Bazari, Balotra vs. ITO, Balotra

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

…ince, cash was deposited in bank account of the assessee, onus was upon the assessee to explain nature and source of said cash deposit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnathambam (2007) 162 taxmann 459 (SC)/(2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC)/ (2007) 211 CTR 86 (SC) wherein, it is held that the onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rest on the person in whose name the deposit appears in various banks. As the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof, the AO is right in his action to treat the said cash deposit as unexplained. The Ground of appeal is dismissed.” D…

Sri Manoj Dash, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.405/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Manoj Dash, Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.F/2, Amrita Residency Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aeopd 6174 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Ch. Mohanty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2016, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Even The Case Was Called For Second Round For Hearing. Therefore, The Bench Proceeded To Dispose Off The Case After Considering The Arguments Of Ld. Dr & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under :- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Assessment Passed By The Forums Below Are Not Just & Proper Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Such The Additions Made Therein Are Liable To Be Deleted In The Interest Of Justice.

…A.O. In such circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant has failed to explain the source of deposits and therefore, addition on 8 this count is confirmed by placing reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Chinnathamban 292 ITR 682. In view of the above discussion, we found that both the lower authorities have passed just and proper order, in which our interference is not required. Accordingly, we uphold the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss this ground of the assessee. 13. Coming to ground No.5, this ground of assessee says that the CIT(A) has erre…

Shri Jayendra Kanjibhai Shah, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assssee is dismissed

…indings made by the AO with regard to the deposits made in the Bank A/c which are not entered in his books. The assessee has shied away from discharging his primary onus to explain the deposits in his Bank account. In the case of CIT Vs. K. Chinnathamban (SC) 292 ITR 682, where the facts were mostly similar with the facts of the present appellant, and the ITAT had directed in favour of linking the cash 'deposits made in the Bank account of Shri Chinnathamban with the accounts of another Firm on whose behalf the cash deposits were allegedly made in his accounts, the apex court held that the onus of proving the sou…