CIT v. P. Mohanakala

291 ITR 278Supreme Court of India2007#125 most cited

What is CIT v. P. Mohanakala authority for?

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,269 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P. Mohanakala · 291 ITR 278 · Section 68 · Section 69A · Section 69C · unexplained cash credit · undisclosed income · circumstantial evidence · burden of proof · assessee rebuttal · preponderance of probability · genuineness of transaction

Also reported as

161 Taxmann 169210 CTR 20

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 115BBESection 69CSection 133(6)Section 148Section 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceaddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionshare application moneyentry operatorunexplained cash creditprincipal commissioner of income-taxincome-tax officersection 131section 69c

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Mohanakala

Tikamchand Sahu, Ainthapali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.494/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2022-23 Tikamchand Sahu, Ainthapali Imfl Off Shop, Sambalpur, Odisha, 768004 Pan: Hejps3794R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ “एक-सद"” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.494/RPR/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2022-23 Tikamchand Sahu, AINTHAPALI IMFL OFF Shop, Sambalpur, Odisha, 768004 PAN: HEJPS3794R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Income Tax Officer, Near Trimurty Colony, Raipur Road, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, 493445 ……""थ" / Respondent Assessee by : None (Adjournment Application) Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / D…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Satish Jalan, Shillong

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat. 3. There Are Currently More Than 300 Time Barred Assessment & 200 Penalty Cases Are Pending In This Office. Due To Shortage Of Manpower It Was Delayed In The Filing Of Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat.

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…nt, the lender did not comply with summons issued u/s.131. Hence, his financial capacity remained unverified. Section 68 mandates the assessee to discharge the primary onus, which was not done In this regard, reliance is placed on -CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) Further, the lender (Mr AA) ignored notices u/s 133(6) and did not file ITRs for the relevant years, casting serious doubt on the transaction's authenticity. The assessee also could not provide Bank statements of the lender. Source of funds, Proof of repayment terms during assessment.…

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…es available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion - CIT v. P. Mohanakala[2007] 161 Taxman 169 / 291 ITR 278 (SC). On perusal of assessment order it is clear that the AO did not consider the material available on record. 5.2 In the Case of CIT v/s Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del) it has been held that “AO made the addition towards unexplained cash credit on the basis that it was the assessee's money(Rs.22,97,000/-) which was deposited in cas…

Satish Sawarmal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

…dit. 9.5 The Revenue Department before us has claimed that mere submission of documents like bank statements or confirmation does not suffice, if the genuineness of the lender is questionable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) has held that once the explanation offered by the Assessee qua income is found unsatisfactory, then the same must be treated as income u/s 68 of the Act. 9.6 As we have observed above that the Assessee has explained the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genunness of the transactions by filing relevant documents referred to above…

Mali Ram Yadav, Therkyo Ki Dhani vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1110/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mali Ram Yadav Thekryo Ki Dhani, Village & Post: Jahota, Tehsil: Amer Distt: Jaipur 303 701 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward - 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ABJPY 6715A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA Mrs. Prachela Kabra, CA राजस्व की ओर से /

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

…he principles of natural justice have been adhered to, and the appellant's non-compliance justifies the ex-parte assessment u/s 144, The onus of proving the genuineness of the loan transaction lies with the appellant. In the case of CIT vs P Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)), the Supreme Court held that the assessee must provide cogent evidence to substantiate the genuineness of transactions. In the present case, the appellant 5 SHRI MALI RAM YADAV VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the loan from Smt. Amrita Agarwal The interest charged u/s 234A, 2348, and 234C is…

Sehgal Path Lab, Andheri West vs. ITO, Circle 17(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4830/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrisehgal Path Lab Vs. Ito, Circle 17(1) 103, Yashodhan It Sehgal Circle 17(1), Path Lab, Azad Nagar, S.O, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400053. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abxfs0461M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed –CA &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…acts of the case which negate the claim of the appellant. Courts have consistently held that cash books without supporting primary documents are self-serving and cannot be relied upon to discharge the onus under Section 68. In the case of CIT v. P Mohanakala (291 ITR 278 SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the explanation must be credible and not just apparent from books. 5.5. The appellant argues that taxing the cash deposits under section 68 would result in double taxation since the receipts are already offered to tax as business Income. However, this argument holds only if the receipts are proven to be genuine…

Bhawna Puri, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Mandi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 978/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 68

…nd to examine any deposit in accordance with the law, and section 68 clearly mandates that unexplained credits or cash deposits must be satisfactorily explained. Judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278), strengthen the requirement that explanations must be credible and supported by evidence. In the present case, the appellant’s explanation fails on both counts: it lacks credibility and is not backed by corroborative documentation. The AO has exercised due diligence, provided opportunities to the assessee to explain the deposits, and allowed par…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…cial receipts such as interest. Judicial Support: CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1972) 72 ITR 194 (SC): Where no explanation is offered for cash credits, it is open to the AO to treat them as income from undisclosed sources. CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC): Mere disclosure is insufficient; the assessee must substantiate the source with evidence. Failing which, the department is justified in making an addition. Accordingly, the Revenue respectfully submits that the surrendered income must be linked to the incriminating documents found and taxed as income from business activity, particularly int…

M/S Ankur Developers & Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

ITA 428/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 68

…ee to explain the nature and source of any sum credited in its books. It is well-settled by decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 804), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif (50 ITR 1), Roshan Di Hatti (107 ITR 938) and P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278), that the Revenue is not required to prove the precise source of the monies so credited once the assessee’s explanation is found unsatisfactory. In the present case, moreover, Shri Dinesh V. Shah had himself admitted that on-money receipts in cash were routed back into the group’s books through the guise of such unsecured loans, thereby clearly…

Hanumanthappa Pathrera Laxmana, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(1) & Tps, Shimogga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 247/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Atul K Alur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, JCIT (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 69C

…s or creditors are identifiable and their details are furnished, the Department is free to proceed against them, but the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee for failure of the Department to pursue enquiries. Similarly, in CIT v. P. Mohankala [291 ITR 278 (SC)], it has been emphasised that the nature of evidence and shifting of burden must be appreciated in the facts of each case. Once basic details are on record, the ball lies in the Revenue’s court. 14.4 In our considered view, therefore, the assessee had discharged the primary onus cast upon him. The failure, if any, was on the part of the AO…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga vs. Hanumanthappa Pathrera Laxmana, Shivamogga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1066/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Atul K Alur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, JCIT (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 69C

…s or creditors are identifiable and their details are furnished, the Department is free to proceed against them, but the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee for failure of the Department to pursue enquiries. Similarly, in CIT v. P. Mohankala [291 ITR 278 (SC)], it has been emphasised that the nature of evidence and shifting of burden must be appreciated in the facts of each case. Once basic details are on record, the ball lies in the Revenue’s court. 14.4 In our considered view, therefore, the assessee had discharged the primary onus cast upon him. The failure, if any, was on the part of the AO…

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

…t ), [2007] 290 ITR page 306, where the Hon’ble court has settled that mere identification of the donor and movement of funds through bank is not enough to prove genuineness. 27. Thereafter, he relied on the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 [2007] dated 15/05/2007, to submit that the sum credited in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs.9 lakhs, the explanation offered by the assessee regarding its nature and source, has been proved to be unsatisfactory and as such he prayed that the addition may please be sustained. 28. We have heard the rival submissions and considere…

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

…was a receipt of art income nature, while considering the explanation of the assessee the Department cannot, however, act unreasonably. (See Sreelekha Banerjee’ case (1963) 49 (SC) 112 at Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ite Judgement in case of CIT v P. Mohankalg 7) 291 ITR 278 has held as under: 16, The question is what Is the true nature and scope of section 68 of the Act? When, Ney in what circumstances would section 68 of the Act come into play? A bare ding of section 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books by an assessee; such credit has to be a sum during the previous year, the assessee off…

Setron Textile Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4847/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…easonable. It is a well-settled principle of law that the burden to prove the genuineness of a transaction, especially in cases where alleged manipulation or accommodation entries are suspected, lies on the assessee. In the case of CIT v. P. Mohankala [(2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)] and Sumati Dayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)], the Apex Court has emphasized that in determining the genuineness of transactions, the test of human probability and surrounding circumstances must be applied. 5.2.3. Here, there is overwhelming evidence that the transactions lacked economic substance and were designed to create fictitious…

Man Mohan Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

…ITA No.1214/Del/2024 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, vs DCIT/ACIT, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. PAN-ACAPA1883B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jha, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by Ld.…

Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Kansagra, Rajkot vs. ACIT Cir - 2(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 409/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.409/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Acit Kansagara, Circle – 2(1), C-507, Imperial Heights, Rajkot - 360001 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot - 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acspk6893P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Alpa V. Makadiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…arned CIT(A) has erred in law in placing the burden of proving source of source on the appellant, which is not required under section 68 once the primary three conditions-identity, credit worthiness, and genuineness-are satisfied. [CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC); PCIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 117 taxmann.com 451 (Bom)] 5. That the assessment and appellate proceedings are vitiated due to lack of independent verification by the AO/CIT(A), and the addition is based on mere suspicion and conjectures. [CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)] 6. That the order of the learned CIT(A) i…

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kolar Paper Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1978/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.1978/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Dy. Commissioner Of V/S. M/S. Kolar Paper Mills Income Tax, Circle बिाम Ltd. 2(1)(1), Mumbai A 404, Twin Tower Chs Ltd, Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, Lokhandwala, 2Nd Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Near, Apna Ghar Andheri Road, Mumbai 400020 West, Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck8381N Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Majetia, Ca Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: 26.08.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Majetia, CAFor Respondent: 26.08.2025
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69CSection 80G

…the following grounds in this appeal. “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction through banking channel is not always genuine as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Mohan Kala & Others (291 ITR 278). P a g e | 2 ITA No 1978/MUM/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 M/s. Kolar Paper Mills LTd. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction through bank is executed to make the otherwise colourable transaction appear genuine. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)…

Suman Forwarding Agency Private Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1432/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction lies squarely on the appellant when a sum is found credited in its books as per section 68 of the Act. This principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278) and reiterated in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), wherein it was held that failure to discharge this threefold onus invites addition under section 68. In the present case, despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to produce the directors of M/s Gajmurti Agency Pvt. Ltd. No agreement, communication, or rationale for suc…

M/S Stanford Developers, Neemrana Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Behror

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

ITA 405/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…quoted in support :- (1) H.H. Rama Varma Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 308 (Supreme Court) Held that the phrase "any sum" employed in Sec. 68 of the Act cannot be extended to include any book entry, notional adjustment, payment in kind etc. (2) CIT Vs. P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Sec. 68 observed that (a) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the tax payer (b) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year. It is further submitted that the credits transferred to the account of partners stood as opening balance in the books of the firm.…

Sonthalia Capital Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.958/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sonthalia Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata 3Rd Unit No.3, Floor, Ideal Centre, 9, Ajc Bose Road, Circus Aenue, So Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aabck 4477 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Company Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The 2017-18 & Declaring Total Income Of Rs. Rs. 10,14,610/-. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Appellant Company & Duly Complied With. Subsequently Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed On 24.12.2019 Determining Total Income At Rs.59,14,610/-. While Framing The Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Has Made Additions Under Section 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.25,00,000/- & 24,00,000/- With Respect To Loan Received From Linkwise Dealtrade Private Limited (In Short ‘Ldpl’) & Ambala Trafin Private Limited (In Short ‘Atpl’), Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…nnot be assumed in the absence of any material that there has been some illegalities in the assessee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect…