CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana

1 SCC 384Reported decision1998#6494 most cited

What is CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana authority for?

If an asset or bank account is not proven to belong to the assessee or that the assessee is the beneficial owner, tax provisions cannot be applied against the assessee. The burden of proof lies entirely with the tax department, which cannot require the assessee to prove a negative.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana · 1998 1 SCC 384 · onus of proof · departmental burden · proving negative · beneficial ownership · assessee's assets · bank accounts

Judgments citing CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…belongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such account, the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…belongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such account, the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1217/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such asset, then the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1216/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such asset, then the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1215/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such asset, then the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1214/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such asset, then the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1213/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such asset, then the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1212/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such asset, then the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1211/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ongs to the assessee or assessee is beneficial owner of such asset, then the provisions of section cannot be applied against the assessee. This clear proposition is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, [1998] 1 SCC 384. Further, the onus to prove fully lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the bur…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ARUNKUMAR R MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2477/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Central Circle-1(1) Vs. Arun Kumar R. Mehta Room No.903, 9Th Floor 1608, Prasad Chamber Old Cgo(Annexe) Behind Tbz, Opera House M.K.Road Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aabpm3327M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Central Circle-1(1) Vs. Arun Kumar R. Mehta Room NO.903, 9th Floor 1608, Prasad Chamber Old CGO(Annexe) Behind TBZ, Opera House M.K.Road Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No.AABPM3327M Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Nitesh Joshi & P.P.Bhandari Revenue by Anadi Varma Date of Hearing 15/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2019 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commi…

HARSHAD R. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2744/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…laced on the following decisions to drive home the point that entity must strictly fall within the charging provisions of the law:- (i) AV.Fernandez vs State of Kerala reported in AIR 1957 SC 657 (ii) CWT , Gujarat vs Ellis Bridge Gymkhana reported in (1998) 1 SCC 384 Reliance was placed on the following decisions to drive home the point that onus of establishing the condition of taxability is on the department:- (i) K.P.Varghese vs ITO Ernakulam reported in 131 ITR 597 (SC) (ii) CIT vs Shivakami Co. Pvt Ltd reported in (1986) 2 SCC 418 p) It is clear that the default position is that the onus of proof to demon…

KUNAL N. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(2),

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6067/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah Acit 16(2) 61-A, 6Th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. Pan Aacps0199L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms Neha Thakur
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 69A

…ettled that a charging provision under a taxing statute must be strictly interpreted and there can be no imposition of tax by implication. The learned AR in support of his contentions relied on the following decisions : CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana [1998] (1 SCC 384) A.V Fernandez vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1957 SC 657] CIT vs. Kasturi & Sons LTd. [3 SCC 346] Sections 160-166 of the I T Act, qua a trust, the statute clearly prescribes a liability of tax in the hands of the trustee, and stipulates that a discretionary beneficiary having received no distribution will not be liable to tax. As such the provisions…

DEEPAK B. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6066/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah Acit 16(2) 61-A, 6Th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. Pan Aacps0199L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms Neha Thakur
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 69A

…ettled that a charging provision under a taxing statute must be strictly interpreted and there can be no imposition of tax by implication. The learned AR in support of his contentions relied on the following decisions : CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana [1998] (1 SCC 384) A.V Fernandez vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1957 SC 657] CIT vs. Kasturi & Sons LTd. [3 SCC 346] Sections 160-166 of the I T Act, qua a trust, the statute clearly prescribes a liability of tax in the hands of the trustee, and stipulates that a discretionary beneficiary having received no distribution will not be liable to tax. As such the provisions…

DEEPAK B. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6065/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah Acit 16(2) 61-A, 6Th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. Pan Aacps0199L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms Neha Thakur
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 69A

…ettled that a charging provision under a taxing statute must be strictly interpreted and there can be no imposition of tax by implication. The learned AR in support of his contentions relied on the following decisions : CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana [1998] (1 SCC 384) A.V Fernandez vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1957 SC 657] CIT vs. Kasturi & Sons LTd. [3 SCC 346] Sections 160-166 of the I T Act, qua a trust, the statute clearly prescribes a liability of tax in the hands of the trustee, and stipulates that a discretionary beneficiary having received no distribution will not be liable to tax. As such the provisions…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

ITA/881/2015HC Delhi18 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…to off-set the effect of inflation on the real value of money. This approach, if followed, would ensure that there is no inconsistency in the awards of compensation in cases of death of children. [R.K.Malik (supra) and Balram Prasad v. Kumar Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384]. Since the amount which requires to be subjected to correction was determined by decision in R.K.Malik wherein cause of action had arisen on 10.11.1997, the financial year 1997-98 is taken as the “base year”. MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page 50 of 70 66. For ready reference, the rates of Cost Inflation Index (CII)…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIDEO ELECTRONICS

ITA/175/2014HC Delhi03 Aug 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…to off-set the effect of inflation on the real value of money. This approach, if followed, would ensure that there is no inconsistency in the awards of compensation in cases of death of children. [R.K.Malik (supra) and Balram Prasad v. Kumar Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384]. Since the amount which requires to be subjected to correction was determined by decision in R.K.Malik wherein cause of action had arisen on 10.11.1997, the financial year 1997-98 is taken as the “base year”. MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page 50 of 70 66. For ready reference, the rates of Cost Inflation Index (CII)…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/250/2013HC Telangana11 Jul 2013

…to off-set the effect of inflation on the real value of money. This approach, if followed, would ensure that there is no inconsistency in the awards of compensation in cases of death of children. [R.K.Malik (supra) and Balram Prasad v. Kumar Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384]. Since the amount which requires to be subjected to correction was determined by decision in R.K.Malik wherein cause of action had arisen on 10.11.1997, the financial year 1997-98 is taken as the “base year”. MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page 50 of 70 66. For ready reference, the rates of Cost Inflation Index (CII)…

CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana (1 SCC 384) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax