CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar

53 ITR 623Supreme Court of India1964#976 most cited

What is CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar authority for?

Where an assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source and nature of a credit entry in their books or unexplained money, the amount can be treated as income, and the Revenue is not required to locate its exact source.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar · M Ganapathi Mudaliar · Section 68 · Section 69A · Section 115BBE · onus of proof · unexplained cash credit · source and nature of credit · department not required to locate source · deemed income · satisfactory explanation

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 153ASection 69ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 106section 155bbesection 66section 2(9)section 2(12a)surrender of incomepeak credit theorycreditworthiness of the creditorincome tax settlement commissionsection 155onus of proofsurvey under section 133a

Judgments citing CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar

Muhammed Kutty Kayingil, Malappuaram vs. The ITO, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmohammed Kutty Kayingil Income Tax Officer Mousufa Nivas (International Taxation) Edappal P.O. Vs. Kozhikode Malappuram 679576 [Pan:Cbxpm7315J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…ion to locate 2 Mohammed Kutty Kayingil v. ITO the exact source. This represents trite law, and toward which we may, for the sake of completeness of our order, refer to Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. M. Ganapati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); and CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC). In fact, it is for this reason that the law provides for it being deemed as income, which is otherwise source-based. 5. In view of the foregoing we find no infirmity, based on the material on record, in the confirmation of the addition for Rs.3.76 lakhs as unexplained cash dep…

Tarlochan Singh, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

…, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any other particular source." It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. M Ganpati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 and A Govindrajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 that "when the assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of the credit entry in his books and it is held that the relevant amount is income of the assessee, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source." The assessee has relied upon the judgment of L…

Sh. Krishan Kumar, Khanna vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

…018 dated 26.03.2019. 4. ‘Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT’, in ITA No. 106 of 2011 dated 27.04.2011. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of ‘Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT’, [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in’ CIT vs. M Ganpati Mudaliar’, [1964] 53 ITR 623 and ‘GovindrajuluMudaliar vs. CIT’, [1958] 34 ITR 807. 7. ITAT Cochin Bench, Cochin in the case of ‘M/s. Bhima Jewellers vs. PCIT’, Kozhikode in ITA No. 208/Coch/2018, Assessment Year 2013-14 and 8. ‘ITO vs. Dulari Digital Photo Services (P) Ltd.’, [2012] 24 Taxman.com 31 (CHD). 5B It was held that these decisions also bring out a clear legal po…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur vs. Aviral Finance Private Limited, Raipur

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

ITA 13/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ito-4(1) Aviral Finance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Ground Floor, Nalghar Chowk, Raipur – 492 001 [Pan: Aabcg 2701 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

…ircumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) was justified in deleting the addition which is contrary to the ratio of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), CIT Vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC), which clearly states that where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a credit entry in his books, and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assessee, it is not necessary for the Department to locate its exact source?" 6. “Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…in law. It in fact has no basis in law inasmuch as the Revenue is not obliged to locate the source of an unexplained credit in the assessee’s accounts or an unexplained asset found with it, for which reference is made to CIT vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar (M.) [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), cited during hearing itself. Reference may also be made to Seth Kale Khan Mohamed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC). In the facts of both these cases, the assessee’s business income was estimated consequent to rejection of it’s books of account as unreliable. The Revenue also br…

Hemant Kumar Mulchandani, Jabalpur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 42/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 183Section 263

…or as non-satisfactory, so that the same, of income nature, is deemed as his unexplained income for the relevant year (Govindarajalu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Ganpathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)). More recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dy. CIT v. M.R. Logistics (P.) Ltd. held that merely because there has been a declaration under IDS, 2016, which in that case was of a related party, the same, unless linked with the impugned receipt, would not prove the same, again emphasizing that the matter, as clarified earlier, is primarily fact…

Sabara Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3267/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80H

…he garb of sales it is assesses own money which he introduced as sales. We further relied on the following judicial pronouncement as under  Roshan di Hatti Vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (S.C)  Kale khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT 50 ITR 1(S.C)  CIT Vs M.Ganapathi Mudaliar 53 ITR 623 (S.C)  A.Govindarajulu Mudalair Vs CIT 34 ITR 807 (S.C) In view of the above addition u/s 68 is rightly made and ground no -4 raised by assessee are dismissed. 7 ITA No. 3267 Mum 2013 & 404 Mum 2016-Sabara Impex Ltd. 10. As far as ground no-5 is concerned that has been dealt in detail by the AO in its original order, order of CIT (A) against t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Vandana Ispat Limited, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…ase, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,59,00,000/- which is contrary to the ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), CIT Vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC), which clearly states that where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a credit entry in his books, and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assessee, it is not necessary for the Department to locate its exact source?” 7. “Whether on points of law and facts and circumstances of the case, the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Subodh Singhania, Raipur

ITA 135/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.135/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Subodh Singhania 5th School Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AJJPS4392P ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by :Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CA Revenue by :Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pro…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Jabalpur vs. Shri Sandesh Kumar Jain, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 41/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…in law. It in fact has no basis in law inasmuch as the Revenue is not obliged to locate the source of an unexplained credit in the assessee‟s accounts or an unexplained asset found with it, for which reference is made to CIT vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar (M.) [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), cited during hearing itself. Reference may also be made to Seth Kale Khan Mohamed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC). In the facts of both these cases, the assessee‟s business income was estimated consequent to rejection of it‟s books of account as unreliable. The Revenue also br…

Sita Ram Sharma, Jaipur vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani (ITP)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)
Section 2Section 68

…ay Laxmi Agro Implement, Rampura Dabari cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that the onus is on the assessee to discharge the onus to explain the cash entries in his books of accounts. Further, in the case of CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)/A, Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) it has been held that where the assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source arid nature of a credit entry in his books and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assessee it is not necessary for the Department to locate its exact source. In the present case t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 284/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.283/DEL/2015 & 284/DEL/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-2013 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-31, 30, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCJ2199J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 23 06 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been fi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 283/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.283/DEL/2015 & 284/DEL/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-2013 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-31, 30, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCJ2199J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 23 06 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been fi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolhapur vs. Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 608/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…the assessee to prove that the same did not belong to him. 3) On the fact and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mulidhar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) which is squarely applicable to the present case. 4) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 42. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and derives his incom…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…the assessee to prove that the same did not belong to him. 3) On the fact and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mulidhar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) which is squarely applicable to the present case. 4) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 42. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and derives his incom…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…the assessee to prove that the same did not belong to him. 3) On the fact and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mulidhar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) which is squarely applicable to the present case. 4) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 42. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and derives his incom…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1245/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…the assessee to prove that the same did not belong to him. 3) On the fact and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mulidhar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) which is squarely applicable to the present case. 4) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 42. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and derives his incom…

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1179/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…the assessee to prove that the same did not belong to him. 3) On the fact and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mulidhar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) which is squarely applicable to the present case. 4) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 42. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and derives his incom…

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1178/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…the assessee to prove that the same did not belong to him. 3) On the fact and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mulidhar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) which is squarely applicable to the present case. 4) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 42. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and derives his incom…

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1177/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…the assessee to prove that the same did not belong to him. 3) On the fact and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mulidhar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) which is squarely applicable to the present case. 4) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 42. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and derives his incom…