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

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Art Housing P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 522/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.522/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-1(1)(1), M/S. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. 534, Aayakar Bhawan, Block No. 302, Mehta Business बनाम/ M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Centre, Khaitan Chambers, Vs. 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahca 6007 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Dharan Gandhi & Shri Vishesh Sangoi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 11.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 26.01.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I. "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Directing The Deletion Of The Sum Brought To Tax By The 2 Ito Vs. M/S. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. Ao As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Moneys Credited In The Books As Share Application Money Rs.45,00,000?"

For Appellant: Ms. N. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri Dharan Gandhi &
Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी शमीम याहया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.522/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO-1(1)(1), M/s. Art Housing Pvt. Ltd. 534, Aayakar Bhawan, Block No. 302, Mehta Business बनाम/ M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Centre, Khaitan Chambers, Vs. 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAHCA 6007 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी शमीम याहया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAIPG 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क"…

Late Pachandass Mohnot, Rep by L/H.Shri M.K.Mohnot, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1589/CHNY/2016[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2017AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 23.11.2017
Section 144Section 147

…acity of the donors and also genuineness of the transactions. Since the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors, the addition is sustained by placing reliance in the judgement of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. MOHANAKALA in [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) wherein held that:- “the findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were based on the material on record and not on any conjectures and surmises. That the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence.” Hence, this ground of…

Late Pachandass Mohnot, Rep by L/H.Shri M.K.Mohnot, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1588/CHNY/2016[1983-84]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2017AY 1983-84

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 23.11.2017
Section 144Section 147

…acity of the donors and also genuineness of the transactions. Since the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors, the addition is sustained by placing reliance in the judgement of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. MOHANAKALA in [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) wherein held that:- “the findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were based on the material on record and not on any conjectures and surmises. That the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence.” Hence, this ground of…

Late Pachandass Mohnot, Rep by L/H.Shri M.K.Mohnot, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1587/CHNY/2016[1982-83]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2017AY 1982-83

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 23.11.2017
Section 144Section 147

…acity of the donors and also genuineness of the transactions. Since the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors, the addition is sustained by placing reliance in the judgement of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. MOHANAKALA in [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) wherein held that:- “the findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were based on the material on record and not on any conjectures and surmises. That the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence.” Hence, this ground of…

Late Pachandass Mohnot, Rep by L/H.Shri M.K.Mohnot, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1586/CHNY/2016[1977-78]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2017AY 1977-78

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 23.11.2017
Section 144Section 147

…acity of the donors and also genuineness of the transactions. Since the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors, the addition is sustained by placing reliance in the judgement of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. MOHANAKALA in [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) wherein held that:- “the findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were based on the material on record and not on any conjectures and surmises. That the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence.” Hence, this ground of…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…s 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. 22 Shri Radhey Ram Godara vs ITO, Ward- 3(5), Jaipur 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 ass…

ACIT, Pondicherry vs. Chemfab Alkalis Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2810/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: 26.09.2017For Respondent: Shri Sridhar, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 250(6)

…he owner of the asset and therefore was justified in not allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation. (viii) Reliance was also placed in the case A. Rajendran vs. ACIT reported in 127 ITD 361 and the decision of the case CIT vs. P. Mohanakala reported in 291 ITR 278 wherein based on the various surrounding circumstances relied by the Ld.AO the explanation offered by the assessee for having received the gift which was upheld was rejected. (ix) The basic evidence for carrying out services by the sales commission agents were absent in the case of the assessee. (x) Since the companies / clients who have purc…

ITO 13(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Constructors P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3754/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 131wSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…was the witness of the assessee. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence against the assessee. In support of his submission the ld DR for the revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs P. Mohankala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/ [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/ (291 ITR 278), CIT Vs Divine leasing and Finance Ltd [2008] 299 ITR 68(SC), decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Royal Rich Developer Vs DCIT ITA No. 1836/M/2014 dated 24.08.2016, Disha N. Lalwani Vs ITO in ITA No.6398/M/2012, decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Rajmandir Estate Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT in ITA No.113 of 2016, Delhi High Court i…

Shreedham Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(3), Kalyan

ITA 2948/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 131wSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…was the witness of the assessee. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence against the assessee. In support of his submission the ld DR for the revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs P. Mohankala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/ [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/ (291 ITR 278), CIT Vs Divine leasing and Finance Ltd [2008] 299 ITR 68(SC), decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Royal Rich Developer Vs DCIT ITA No. 1836/M/2014 dated 24.08.2016, Disha N. Lalwani Vs ITO in ITA No.6398/M/2012, decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Rajmandir Estate Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT in ITA No.113 of 2016, Delhi High Court i…

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Harsh Dalmia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7459/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 7459/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2008-09) ITO 3(3)(4) Shri Harsh Dalmia Vs. Room No. 672 91, Sunflower 6th Floor Cuffe Parade Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400005 M.K. Road PAN : ABQPD8832L Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. N. Hemlatha Date of Hearing 17.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2017 O R D E R The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-8, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2008- 09. 2. None appeared on behalf o…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Luminant Investment Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2067/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 68

…se acquaintances, etc. It is because of the reason that in such circumstance, the assessee cannot feign ignorance about the status of these parties. 21 We may also usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278. 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 assessees by negotiations through bank in India. The evidence indicated that the donor was to receive suitable compensation from the assessees. The Asses…

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Champalal D. Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2556/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 68

…test 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. 7.3.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT V. P. Mohanakata [2007J 291 ITR 278 / 161 Taxman 169; it is 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 sa…

Shailesh Kantilal Shah, Goregaon vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6044/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Shailesh Kantilal Shah, Income Tax Officer- 503, B, Dharam Palace, 16(2)(2), बनाम/ Huges Road, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafps5517F

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Shailesh Kantilal Shah, Income Tax Officer- 503, B, Dharam Palace, 16(2)(2), बनाम/ Huges Road, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN No.:-AAFPS5517F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by None Shri V. Justin-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 आदेश…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Greenland Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1528/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal No. 1528/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2003-04. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Greenland Finance & Ward : 12 (2), Vs. Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 306, Sharp Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. Pan : Aaacg 3755 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. D. R
Section 68

…Ltd. (2009) 179 Taxman 1 (Del.); (iv) CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del.); (v) CIT Vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.); (vi) CIT Vs. Pradeep Gupta 207 CTR 115 (Del.); (vii) CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278. 3.3 The ld. AR contended further that proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.04.2013 and thus it would be effective only from assessment year 2013-14 onward and not for the subject assessment year. In support the ld. AR has placed reliance on the recent decision dated 20.03.2017 of Hon’b…

M/S. Rohit Bal vs. ACIT

In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Surendra KumarFor Respondent: Ms. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 68

…ase of the company. The assessee has not produced any sufficient evidence to prove identity, creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (Supreme Court) and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. vs. CIT 305 ITR 202. Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of any evidence of record confirmed the addition and dismissed this ground of appeal . 6. After considering rival submission, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of assessee . It is not in…

Mr Vidit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3075/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia and Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.DR
Section 131

…to the assessee. Further, the assessee was asked Page 6 of 10 Mr. Vidit Jain vs. ITO to appear in person before the Assessing Officer, but never appeared. The addition of Rs.20 lakhs was justified. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohankala 291 ITR 278 held "The assessee received foreign gifts from one common donor. The payments were made to them by instruments issued by foreign banks and credited to the respective account of the assessees by negotiation through a bank in India. Most of the cheques sent from aboard were drawn on the Cittbank, N. A. Singapore. The evidence indicated that the don…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Space Age Research & Technology Foundation Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…lay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. IV. "Krishan Kumar Jhanb v/s ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249" V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. VI. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VIII. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) I.. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law in admitting the additional evidences while deleting the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the IT. Act 1961 in violation of…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

…s 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, i…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

…s 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, i…