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 372,569 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

Damodaran & Sons, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(5), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2179/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

…Capital Gain for which exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act is available. 6. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO after detailed deliberations and placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, in the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Diza Holdings reported in 255 ITR 573 and in the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case Precision Finance reported in 208 ITR 265 etc., wherein it was held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channel is of no consequence by itself. 7. Before us the Ld.…

Laxmi Devi Maheswari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(1), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2178/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

…Capital Gain for which exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act is available. 6. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO after detailed deliberations and placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, in the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Diza Holdings reported in 255 ITR 573 and in the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case Precision Finance reported in 208 ITR 265 etc., wherein it was held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channel is of no consequence by itself. 7. Before us the Ld.…

Vijay Kumar Maheswari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(4), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2177/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

…Capital Gain for which exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act is available. 6. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO after detailed deliberations and placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, in the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Diza Holdings reported in 255 ITR 573 and in the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case Precision Finance reported in 208 ITR 265 etc., wherein it was held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channel is of no consequence by itself. 7. Before us the Ld.…

Vinay Kumar Maheswari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(4), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2176/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

…Capital Gain for which exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act is available. 6. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO after detailed deliberations and placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, in the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Diza Holdings reported in 255 ITR 573 and in the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case Precision Finance reported in 208 ITR 265 etc., wherein it was held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channel is of no consequence by itself. 7. Before us the Ld.…

Gayathri Devi, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(3), Chennai

In the result all the appeals raised by the assessees in ITA

ITA 2175/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 68

…Capital Gain for which exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act is available. 6. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO after detailed deliberations and placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case P. Mohankala reported in 291 ITR 278, in the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Diza Holdings reported in 255 ITR 573 and in the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case Precision Finance reported in 208 ITR 265 etc., wherein it was held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channel is of no consequence by itself. 7. Before us the Ld.…

ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Greeksoft Institute of Financial Market Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3969/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 68

…of Financial Market Pvt. Ltd. individual assessments in case of alleged bogus shareholders in accordance with the law and is not remediless. 8. The AO also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P Mohanakala (291 ITR 278), Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995)(214 ITR 801). Accordingly the AO took the view that the assessee has failed to prove identity of persons, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of persons in respect of share application money received by it. Accordingly he assessed the sum of Rs.370 lakhs as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 9. B…

Sunil Ramakrishna, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16

ITA 2463/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B. G. Kupendra Setty, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H L Soumya Achar,Addl.CIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.2463/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Sunil Ramakrishna, No.154, 2nd A Cross, 6th Main, 7th Block, 2nd Stage, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore-560 072. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri B. G. Kupendra Setty, CA Respondent By : Smt. H L Soumya Achar,Addl.CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 20.09.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed a…

N.V. Graphics & Advertising P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 614/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(3)

…elied upon cases. It is worth noting that in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that one has to consider all surrounding circumstances for accepting the genuineness of a transaction. Further, in the case of P Mohankala 291 ITR 278, also, after considering the entirety of surrounding circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not accepted the genuineness of cash credits even 4 though the same were received through banking channels. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that detailed inquiries by Sales Tax Department revealed that none of the 5 parties in question…

Sh. Bilal Ahmed Wani, Srinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 373/ASR/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Sept 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 373/Asr/2009 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Vinamar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 254(2)

…the action of the ld. CIT(A) is justified and these three grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed’. 5 Bilal Ahmed Wani v. ITO On merits, after discussing the matter vide paras 6 through 6.2, it, relying on the decision in CIT v. Mohankala P. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), held that the genuineness of the transaction could not be proved by the assessee, dismissing his fourth ground. 3.2 The relevant part of the recall order reads as under: ‘4.1 The Registry is directed to fix the main appeal in ITA No. 373(Asr)/2009 for 13.03.2013 for arguments on the written submissions filed by the ld. DR.’ The sole issue,…

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. R&B Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5347/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-13(3)(1), M/S R & B Infra Projects Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sodawala Cross Lane, Vs. M. K. Marg, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaecm3616P

Section 133(6)Section 68

…CIT 241 ITR 497 (Kerala.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Mohankala (2007)(291 ITR 278)(SC). A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is well settled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the assessee…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. Golden Line Studio Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6146/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…s not right in law in invoking provisions of sec.68 during this year, since funds were not received during this year. In support of this proposition, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P Mohanakala (291 ITR 278)(SC). 7. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has received share premium on Preference Shares, which is non-convertible and also redeemable. Hence the AO was not right in applying the tests applicable to equity shares to preference shares. He submitted that Share premium is a capital receipt and hence the same cannot be subjected to tax, since…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

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

ITA 6099/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…ts which have to be established to discharge the burden under section 68 of the Act: • Identity of the creditor • Creditworthiness of the creditor, and • Genuineness of the transaction. 6.3.18 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 held that the expression "assessee offers no explanation" means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. It further held that the opinion of the AO for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfactor…

ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Ggf Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6006/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6006/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 12(2)(3), Room No. बिधम/ M/S. Ggf Industries Pvt. 226, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Ltd. A-303, Bhattad Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Opp. Kora Kendra Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Ground, Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg3856E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…eholders are family friends/close acquaintances, etc. It is because of the reason that m such circumstance, the assessee cannot feign ignorance about the status of these parties. 6.7 The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P, Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 is also relevant on the facts of the case. In that case, the assessee had received foreign gifts from one common donor. The payments were made to them by instruments issued by foreign banks and credited to the respective accounts of the assessee by negotiations through bank in India. The evidence indicated that the donor was to receive suitable c…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

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

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…12 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) [affirming 34 ITR 669 (MP)] CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) CIT v. Y.M. Singla [2014] 366 ITR 242 (P&H) Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) The reason for the same is simple; the assessee being in receipt of a sum of money, the onus is on him to show that the same was not in the natur…

Satish Waman Wagh, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT Range - 24(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 6026/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6026/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Satish Waman Wagh Joint Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 207/208, Udyog Bhavan Tax-24(1) Sonawala Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 063 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapw-7907-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Rahul K. Hakani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The same ratio was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (S.C) and it was reaffirmed in the case of CIT v. P. Mohankala (2009) 291 ITR 278 (S.C). Keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court it is held that the story of the assessee earning bumper agricultural income is beyond human probabilities. The assessee has not been able to explain the following facts: - (a) The assessee has not been able to explain as to how an investment of Rs.23,00,000/- in the agricultural land can…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…CIT 241 ITR 497 (Kerala.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Mohankala (2007)(291 ITR 278)(SC). A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is well settled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the assessee,…

ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Elegant Creations P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5632/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer M/S Elegant Creations Pvt. Ltd. 12(2)(2), Room No. 146A, 701, Meenaxi Apt. Gokuldham, Vs. 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace5295L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vipul J. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…usion by relying on decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 295 (SC), Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del), Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB), CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100, CIT v. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del), CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 10 (Del), the Ld. M/s Elegant Creations Pvt. Ltd. 5 CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.3,85,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that the additional evidence was file…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…CIT 241 ITR 497 (Kerala.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Mohankala (2007)(291 ITR 278)(SC). A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is well settled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the assessee…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…T 241 ITR 497 (Kerala.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Mohankala (2007)(291 ITR 278)(SC). A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is well settled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the assessee…

Dy.C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra vs. M/S Vacmet Packagings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Agra

ITA 45/AGR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…said sum of Rs. 5.50 crore is not found credited in books of account in total disregard of the balance sheet filed by the assessee. 16. That CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in ignoring the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P. Mohankala (291 ITR 278) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "That the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below are based on proper appreciation of facts and the material available on record and surrounding circumstances. The doubtful nature of transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained…