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

Imtiyaz Amirullah Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 2018/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2018/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Imtiyaz Amirullah Khan Ito-17(2)(4), Gr. Floor, R. No. 1A, Mumbai बनाम/ Near Municiple Market, Ch-011, Vs. Gate No. 6, Sewree Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Azpk 9500 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shekhar Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Suman Ratnam Darsi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.8.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 26.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.2.2016, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010- 11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2. The Sole Issue Arising In The Instant Case Is The Extent Of Income Liable To Be Brought To Tax Against Undisclosed Cash Deposits In The Assessee’S Bank Account With Icici Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai (Account Number 087401500061).

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Dr. Suman Ratnam Darsi
Section 143(3)Section 68

…dresses of the parties from whom the purchases and sales were claimed, the said explanation was found not acceptable by the A.O. who, relying on the decisions in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 151 (All), treated the entire cash deposited (Rs. 88.45 lacs) as income assessable u/s. 68 of the Act. However, as the assessee had already disclosed the turnover of Rs.15.62 lacs, credit for the same was allowed and only the excess tur…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8337/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kailash GaikwadFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e the Revenue pleaded that the assessee had not been able to prove the impugned credits in terms of section 68 of the Act, relying on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); CIT vs. M. Ganapati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) (refer Ground 3 of the Appeal), the assessee’s case, relying on CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 206 (Guj); Amitabh Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 385 (Jhark); Manoj Aggarwal vs. Dy. CIT [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Del) (SB); ACIT vs. Lak…

Udayraj N. Pal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2868/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Udayraj N. Pal Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 25B, New Kant Wadi 304, Piramal Chambers Vs. Perry Cross Road Parel, Mumbai 400012 Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Pan - Alqpp2215D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…hus, it has failed to discharge its onus. To strengthen the view of the A.O., reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (a) Roshan Di Hat Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad 72 ITR 194 (SC) (c) CIT Vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) Keeping in view the above facts, & circumstances, it is held that the assessee has failed to submit documentary evidences and produce the parties before the A.O. for examination because there was non- c…

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

…d 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/2015 5 4.Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 07.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Ac…

Hitendra M Ghosh, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5347/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hitendra M. Ghosh, Ito, 28, Veena Beena, Gr. Fl. Ward-19(1)(3), बनाम/ Opp. Bandra Station, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400050 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Acmpg7670A

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

…n lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the ca…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Smt. Madhu Choudhary, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3515/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3515/Del/2012 A.Yr. : 2009-10 Ito, Ward-1, Smt. Madhu Choudhary, 160, Sector-14, Rohtak Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak Vs. (Pan: Aaupc9590R) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ssessment order. 1 2. That the appellant craves for permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. Covered by:- i) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) ii) CIT vs. M. Ganpathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) iii) CIT vs. R.S. Rathore (1995) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.) 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Delhi drawing salary and declared total income of Rs. 3,32,310/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI of Rs. 1.00 Lakh. 2.1 As per the AIR information received, the AO noted that the as…

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

…ce, income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income. The assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and nature of cash received during the accounting year. Similarly 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 posi…

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

…ce, income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income. The assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and nature of cash received during the accounting year. Similarly 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 posi…

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

…hat source, income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income. The assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and nature of cash received during the accounting year. 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt Ltd

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

…urce, income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income. The assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and nature of cash received during the accounting year. Similarly 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 positio…