Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT

34 ITR 807Supreme Court of India1958#255 most cited

What is Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT authority for?

The onus lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source and nature of any unexplained cash or credit entries; if they fail to do so, the amount is treated as taxable income. The Income Tax Department is not required to locate the exact source of such funds, and this principle applies even if Section 68 is not strictly invoked.

306

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Govindarajulu Mudaliar v CIT · Section 68 · Section 69 · Section 69A · unexplained cash credit · onus of proof · source and nature of credit · creditworthiness · department not required to locate source · taxable income · general principles of taxation

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 69ASection 69Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 106section 66creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofpaper companysource of sourceshare capital and share premiumsection 251(2)section 31addition u/s 68live linksection 251(1)(a)

Judgments citing Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kol vs. Ramakant Beriwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/60/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…be fallacious and after referring to the decision in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Versus CIT 92 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is not the duty of the revenue to adduce 92 (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 120 of 150 evidence to show from what source income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue to locate the exact source.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Girish Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/157/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…be fallacious and after referring to the decision in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Versus CIT 92 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is not the duty of the revenue to adduce 92 (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 120 of 150 evidence to show from what source income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue to locate the exact source.…

Pr CIT 9 Kolkata vs. Girish Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/156/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…be fallacious and after referring to the decision in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Versus CIT 92 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is not the duty of the revenue to adduce 92 (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 120 of 150 evidence to show from what source income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue to locate the exact source.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. Gopal Prasad Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/151/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…be fallacious and after referring to the decision in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Versus CIT 92 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is not the duty of the revenue to adduce 92 (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 120 of 150 evidence to show from what source income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue to locate the exact source.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…be fallacious and after referring to the decision in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Versus CIT 92 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is not the duty of the revenue to adduce 92 (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 120 of 150 evidence to show from what source income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue to locate the exact source.…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…be fallacious and after referring to the decision in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Versus CIT 92 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is not the duty of the revenue to adduce 92 (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 120 of 150 evidence to show from what source income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue to locate the exact source.…

Sita Ram Sharma, Jaipur vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani (ITP)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)
Section 2Section 68

…ed. It is pertinent to mention here that the onus is on the assessee to discharge the onus to explain the cash entries in his books of accounts. Further, in the case of CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)/A, Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) it has been held that where the assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source arid nature of a credit entry in his books and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assessee it is not necessary for the Department to locate its exact source. In the present case the assessee has failed to discharge his onus. Therefore,…

Potent Foods Private Limted, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 104/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Shyam SunderFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68

…at credits have not been explained then, there is no duty upon the AO to point out the source from which the money was received by the assessee. Reliance is put on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Govindarajulju Mudaliaar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807, Commissioner of Income-tax vs Independent Media (P.) Ltd. 210 TAXMANN 14 (Delhi) (2012). 10.7. The AO has confronted the appellant through a detailed show cause on 07.12.2018 before making the addition. Various adverse findings have been confronted to the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Adequate opportunities of being heard have bee…

ACIT, Allahabad vs. M/S Sunsine Infrastate Pvt Ttd, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

ITA 103/ALLD/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 May 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Parveen Godbole,CA
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

…/Alld/2017 and C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (arising out of ITA No. 103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited,Allahabad 46A of the 1962 Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with this issue in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807, as under: "Now the contention of the appellant is that assuming that he had failed to establish the case put forward "by him, it does not follow as a matter of law that the amounts in question were income received or accrued during the previous year, that it was the duty of the Department to adduce evidence to show from what source the income wa…

Prime Quality Consultants(P) Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), New Delhi

ITA 1350/DEL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 68

…icer and thereupon the Assessing Officer should form an opinion accepting or rejecting the explanation based upon appreciation of facts/materials and other attending circumstances. Section 68 of the Act was examined in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT, [19581 34 ITR 807 (SC) observing that there were ample authorities for the proposition that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during an accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. Whether explanation should be accepted or no…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Magical Infotech (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1189/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.1189/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Magical Infotech (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), [Now Readystream Infotech (P) Ltd.] New Delhi T-336/B, Gali No.8, Near Ojha Dharamshala, Gautampuri, Delhi-110053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcm6581C

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 68

…for resorting tax evasion is clearly not permissible. Present case is classic example of utilization of dubious means for the purpose of tax evasion, which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Moreover The Supreme Court in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar (1958) 34 ITR 807, 810 (SC), held that-“There is ample 20 M/s Magical Infotech (P.) Ltd. authority for the proposition that where an appellant fails to prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received, the A.O. is entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature”. The supreme Court in kale Mohammad Hanif (1963) 50 ITR 14…

Puttappa T.K, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 547/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

…er had made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. Hence mentioning of wrong section would not be fatal. The view expressed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court would get support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A Govindarajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807), which has been explained by the five member Special bench of ITAT in the case of Manoj Agarwal (113 ITD 377) as under:- “26. The argument advanced on behalf of the assessee before us was that the assessee was nut maintaining any books of account and the deposits were found only in the assessee's bank statement which cannot be considered as the b…

K R Pradeep, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Girija G.P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 68

…ay not be strictly applicable since the assessee was not maintaining any books of accounts and the bank statement cannot be considered as the assessee's books of account on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindrajulu Mudaliar 34 ITR 807, it is the onus of the assessee to explain the cash received by him and if there is no explanation or acceptable evidence to prove the nature and source of the receipt, the amount may be added as the assessee's income on general principles and it is not necessary to invoke Section 68, nor is it necessary for the income-tax authorities to point out…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…be fallacious and after referring to the decision in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Versus CIT 92 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is not the duty of the revenue to adduce 92 (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 120 of 150 evidence to show from what source income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue to locate the exact source.…

Rakesh Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-18(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

…e receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the, income tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income see A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 34 ITR 807 SC. In view of the above I, have no reasons to interfere with the conclusion of the A.O. Thus the addition of Rs.5,46,21,248/- as cash credit u/s.68 of the Act is upheld and ground of appeal on this issue is Dismissed.” 5. The Ld. A.R. vehemently argued before the Bench that the capital gain arising from sale of shares of M/s. S.R.K. Industries…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S.Pvk Engineers Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 2168/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Pvk Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcp 9391Dm (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…vt. Ltd., is only Rs. 1,00,000/- each which further adds to the doubt about their creditworthiness. As per the principles laid down by the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (34 ITR 807), the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the :- 7 -: PVK Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. nature of source of a receipt cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee. Accordingly, it is treated that the asse…

M/S.Asit Dixit, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(2), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/JAB/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)

…ITA No. 19/Jab/2020 (AY 2005-06) Asit Dixit v. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (SMC) (through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [PAN: AANFM 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sanjay Seth, CA Respondent by Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16/09/2021 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2021 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 284/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.283/DEL/2015 & 284/DEL/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-2013 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-31, 30, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCJ2199J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 23 06 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been fi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 283/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.283/DEL/2015 & 284/DEL/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-2013 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-31, 30, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCJ2199J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 23 06 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been fi…

Shri Krishna S. Chamankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 24(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7125/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjeet Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7125/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Krishna S. Chamankar Acit – 24(2), R. No. 613, 6Th Floor, Piramal A-1001, Aditi C.H.S.L, Svp Nagar, बिाम/ Versova Telex, Andheri (West) Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 012 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…eposited. The appellant relied on the following case laws in support of his contentions: • Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 • RoshanDi Haiti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) • A. Govindarajulumudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) • Sikri& Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT 106 ITR 682, 688 CIT vs. KulwantKaur 121 ITR 914, CIT vs. Sahibganj Electric Cables P. Ltd. 115 ITR 408, 414. 4.1.4 After carefully going through the submissions of the appellant as well as the views enumerated by me AO, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has erred in his judgement while passing the Asses…