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 366,470 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

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…owing judgments: i) Namdev Arora Vs. CIT, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 124 (P&H); ii) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath, (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC); iii) CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P.Ltd., (2013) 30 taxmann.com 292(Del) iv) A. Govindarajulu Mudalia Vs. CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC); v) Rajmeet Singh Vs. ITO, (2024) 160 taxmann.ocom 83 (Jhark) vi) CIT Vs. Independent Media P.Ltd., (2012) 25 taxmann.com 276 (Del); vii) Shri Arif Vs. ACIT, ITA No.976/Bang/2022 (ITAT-Bang) order dated 126.1.2023; viii) Manoj Aggarwal Vs. DCIT, (2008) 113 ITD 0377 (Del) 19. On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that th…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) (iv) CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) 11 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. (v) CIT vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) (vi) A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) (vii) Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) (viii) Renu T. Tharani vs. DCIT ITA no. 2333/Mum/2018-ITAT- Mumbai. (ix) Durai Murugan Kathir Anand vs. Addl CIT (2022) 443 ITR 423 (Madras) (x) Vivek N. Jajodia vs. ITO (2010) 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai) (xi) Konathala Nooku Naidu v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1 [2024] 160 taxmann.com 758 (Vi…

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

…taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable income. This was laid down as far back as 1958 when this court pointed out in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commisioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 807, 810 (SC) that: "There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commi…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Minto Park Estates Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned

ITAT/4/2025HC Calcutta01 Aug 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…as part of the pre-meditated plan, a “smoke screen” conceived and executed with the connivance or involvement of the assessee company has 1 [1994] 208 ITR 465 2 [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) 3 [1958] 34 ITR 807 4 [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) 5 [2012] 25 Taxmann.com 276 (Delhi) ITAT NO. 4 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 22 been satisfactorily proved. In such factual circumstances, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the identity, creditworthiness of the subscriber companies and the genuineness of the transaction has not been establi…

Luminant Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 68

…number of decisions, which are considered as locus classicus on the subject, of decisions, which are considered as locus classicus on the subject, of decisions, which are considered as locus classicus on the subject, viz. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kale viz. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kale viz. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. vs. CIT [196…

Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 560/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dharnidharka, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal cuke The DCIT, V. 137, Radha Damodar Ki Gali, Chaura Central Circle-1, Jaipur. Rasta, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACPPC5384G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Manish Dharnidharka, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs…

Mallya Real Estates P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

ITA 6158/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…ited in the books of the assessee in the instant year and in such situation where there is no satisfactory explanation for such credits in the books, the law dictates, as laid down by hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Govindarajuly Mudaliar V CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC) that “There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature". 17. In the instant case, the creditworthiness of the l…

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan vs. Shri Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Rander

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

…IT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd., 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), K. M. Sadhukhan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 239 ITR 77 (Cal.), CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (Orissa), CIT vs. Kishorilal & Santhoshilal, 216 ITR 9 (Raj.), A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807, CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd., 333 ITR 119 (Del.) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC). He held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on the assessee. When the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, the revenue can hold that it was income…

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ITA No.108/AGR/2025 ITO Vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.108/AGR/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2022-23) Income Tax Officer-1 Morena, (M.P.) Shri Agrasen Logistics, In front of Old Rajput Vs. Hotel, A.B. Road, Morena-476001 (M.P.) (Appellant) PAN-AEIFS3236E (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sudhir Sehgal Adv. & Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA Department by Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 21/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal i…

Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO Ward-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 387/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, he further submits that the CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the addition placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT 34 ITR 807(SC). Therefore, no interference is called for. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It would be evident that the appellant society had not discharged the onus lying upon it in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Act by proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the persons made…

Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO Ward-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 380/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, he further submits that the CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the addition placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT 34 ITR 807(SC). Therefore, no interference is called for. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It would be evident that the appellant society had not discharged the onus lying upon it in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Act by proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the persons made…

Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO Ward-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 343/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, he further submits that the CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the addition placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT 34 ITR 807(SC). Therefore, no interference is called for. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It would be evident that the appellant society had not discharged the onus lying upon it in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Act by proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the persons made…

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 205/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…t amount is the income of the assesse, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source (CIT SHRI MANHENDRA SINGH NARUKA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)/A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC)). In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under- "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to sh…

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 204/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…t amount is the income of the assesse, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source (CIT SHRI MANHENDRA SINGH NARUKA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)/A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC)). In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under- "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to sh…

Nagar Panchayat, Banda vs. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sagar, Sagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

For Appellant: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…its, the same was liable to be treated as unexplained within the meaning of section 68 as held by various Courts including the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC held that the provisions of section 69A were similar to that of section 68 and therefore, after placing reliance on various decisions that were quoted by him in his assessment order to the effect that the onus was upon the assessee to establish the identity of the person, creditworthiness of the person and the genuinenes…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1465/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable income. This was laid down as far back as 1958 when this court pointed out in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commisioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 807, 810 (SC) that: "There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature." To put it differently, where the nature and sou…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable income. This was laid down as far back as 1958 when this court pointed out in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commisioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 807, 810 (SC) that: "There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature." To put it differently, where the nature and sou…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable income. This was laid down as far back as 1958 when this court pointed out in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commisioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 807, 810 (SC) that: "There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature." Kailash Chand Maheshwari vs. DCIT To put it…

Candor Infratech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2192/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2192/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Candor Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Sf-2, Bhikaji Kama Bhawan, Bhikaji Circle-5(2), Kama Place, New Delhi-110066 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcc4093R Assessee By : Sh. G. V. N. Hari, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Cit(A)-12, New Delhi’S In Case No. 46/17-18 Dated 15.12.2017, In Proceedings U/S 148/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. G. V. N. Hari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 151

…challenging validity of the reopening herein for want of a valid approval of the prescribed authority u/s 151 of the Act. 2 Candor Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 4. Learned CIT-DR on the other hand vehemently submits in light of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), CIT Vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC), ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), ITO Vs. Biju Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247 (SC), ITO Vs. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 (SC) and Sonia Gandhi Vs. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 594 (Del.) that neither the prescribed authorities’ above section 151 approval could be held as…

Padmanabhan Sriramulu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2963/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2963/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Padmanabhan Sriramulu, The Assistant Commissioner Of 77/1, Thirupalli Street, Vs. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Chennai – 600 079. Bsnl Tower Ii, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Abhps-7297-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ession “ 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.” Supreme Court in case of A.GovindarajuluMudaliar v.CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) held that “The burden to prove the genuineness of cash credit lies on the tax payer. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of amounts of cash received and creditworthiness of the creditor, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw inferences that the receipt are of an assessable of an assessable nature.” 7.3 In v…