Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 488/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Peeyush Agarwal The ITO, Vs. 197, Johari Bazar, Ward-1(5), Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKZPA9803G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. & Shri Gulshan Agarwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CI…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

…as to be linked and proved. The onus in this\nregard is on the assesse which has not been discharged.\n(vi) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v\nAdditional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com 70\n(Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)[25-02-2022] has observed as under:\nExtract from headnotes\nSection 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUnexplained moneys (Cash)-Assessment year 2019-20-Pursuant to cash seized at\npremises of employee of a trust where assessee was a trustee, a show cause\nnotice was issued to assessee for addition of sei…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

…s to be linked and proved. The onus in this\nregard is on the assesse which has not been discharged.\n(vi) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v.\nAdditional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com 70\n(Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)[25-02-2022] has observed as under:\nExtract from headnotes\nSection 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUnexplained moneys (Cash)-Assessment year 2019-20-Pursuant to cash seized at\npremises of employee of a trust where assessee was a trustee, a show cause\nnotice was issued to assessee for addition of sei…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…s has to be linked and proved. The onus in this regard is on the assesse which has not been discharged. (vi) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com 70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)[25-02-2022] has observed as under: Extract from headnotes Section 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash)-Assessment year 2019-20-Pursuant to cash seized at premises of employee of a trust where assessee was a trustee, a show cause notice was issued to assessee for addition of seized…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

…oath there was no\nreference to these three individuals making the said payment.\nThe legal principles enumerated in the judgements in the case of Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com\n70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)(25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581\n(Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-\n2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove\nthat the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the sou…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

…oath there was no\nreference to these three individuals making the said payment.\nThe legal principles enumerated in the judgements in the case of Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com\n70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)(25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581\n(Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-\n2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove\nthat the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the sou…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

…oath there was no\nreference to these three individuals making the said payment.\nThe legal principles enumerated in the judgements in the case of Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com\n70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras](25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581\n(Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-\n2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove\nthat the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the sou…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

…oath there was no\nreference to these three individuals making the said payment.\nThe legal principles enumerated in the judgements in the case of Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com\n70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)(25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581\n(Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-\n2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove\nthat the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the sou…

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

…ctions has to be linked and proved. The onus in this regard is on the assesse which has not been discharged. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com 70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras) [25-02-2022] has observed as under:- Extract from headnotes Section 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash)- Assessment year 2019-20-Pursuant to cash seized 15 MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARRAF VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 JAIPUR at premises of employee of a trust where assessee was a truste…

SHRI BHAGWATI FARMS,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

…e decision of Vivek & Jajodiya Vs. ITO (2010) 123 ITR 136 for preponderance of probability, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112, Madras High Court in case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand Vs. Addl. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 423 to hold that onus is on the assessee to prove that funds deposited in his bank account are from the sources from which it is being claimed but assessee has not discharged the onus of showing the genuineness of transaction and identity of the transaction. vi. AO is not required to show the source of money deposited in the bank account. The explan…

SANDEEP KHERADA,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…a rebuttable presumption, is to be presumed against the petitioner The legal principles enumerated in the above referred judgements in the case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxrnann.com 70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)[25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N. Jajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581 (Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove that the funds deposited in his bank account are from the source from which it…