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

Kapil Chhabra, Moradabad vs. DCIT Circle-2, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6345/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…offers no explanation regarding the nature and source of the credit or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. It places no duty upon him to point to the source from which the money was received by the assessee. In A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807, this argument advanced by the assessee was rejected by the Supreme Court. Venkatarama lyer, J., speaking for the court observed as under (@ page 810): - "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…

ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2048/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…s. Such proof includes proof of the identity of its creditors, the capacity of such creditors to advance money and lastly, the genuineness of the transactions. Merely, giving names of the creditors is not enough.” iv) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC):- “That where the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount received during the accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” v) Nizam Wool Agency Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (Ail):- “That mere payment by an account payee cheques is…

DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2739/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2488/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Vs ACIT, 72, Mudali Thottam, Central Circle-31, Veerappanchatram, S.O. Erode, New Delhi Erode, Tamil Nadu-638004 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFVPA2246N ITA No. 2739/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 DCIT, Vs Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-19, 72, Mudali Thottam, New Delhi Veerappanchatram, S.O. Erode, Erode, Tamil Nadu-638004 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFVPA2246N CO No. 140/Del/2023 : Ass…

Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu vs. ACIT, Centyral Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2488/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2488/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Vs ACIT, 72, Mudali Thottam, Central Circle-31, Veerappanchatram, S.O. Erode, New Delhi Erode, Tamil Nadu-638004 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFVPA2246N ITA No. 2739/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 DCIT, Vs Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-19, 72, Mudali Thottam, New Delhi Veerappanchatram, S.O. Erode, Erode, Tamil Nadu-638004 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFVPA2246N CO No. 140/Del/2023 : Ass…

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)
Section 131Section 144

…a credit entry in his books, and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assesse, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source — CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). A party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals.[Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540] If all that an assessee who wants to evade tax…

Digambar Rajaram Lonari, Mudhol, Bagalkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur

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

ITA 178/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 69A

…, Rs.2,20,000 was in excess of the closing cash balance in respect of other business. The cash book was also examined by the AO. Accordingly, the AO after relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindrajulu Mudiliar vs CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807, 810 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 ( SC), CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) and Cit vs. M. Ganpathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC), Smt. Shrilekha Banerjee and Others Vs. Cit Bihar & Orissa, reported in 19464 AIR 697, dated 27/03/1963 & completed…

DCIT Central Circle, Karnal vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt Ltd, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4808/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…l Colonizers (P) Ltd. (2019) 111 taxmann.com 460 (SC). It may be stated that although SLP has been granted, it is open to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to revoke or withdraw the leave, in limine, either suo moto as held in Govindrajulu Mudaliar (A) vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) or on objection taken later, if on later consideration the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that leave ought not to have been given as held in India Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 43 ITR 532 (SC). 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Paras Buildtech India Private Limited vs. CIT (supra) and Sabh Infrastr…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of unsecured loans. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1. Kalekhan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 2. GovindarajuluModaliar Vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Deviprasad Viswanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) In all the above mentioned cases, it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the onus of proving the source of any money received by the assessee lies on the assessee himself. Further, if there is any entry in the books of account of the assessee, it is necessary for the assessee to…

M/S. Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Giriji G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 92C

…probabilities apply. 6.5 The assessee argued that the revenue must have evidence to show circulation of money from the assessee to the third party, which contention was to be rejected in view of the judgement in the case of A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is not the duty of revenue to adduce evidence to show that from what sources income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income and the assessee must prove satisfactorily the sources and the nature of cash received during the accounting year and it is not necessary for the revenue…

Tarlochan Singh, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

…of the assessee and no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any other particular source." It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. M Ganpati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 and A Govindrajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 that "when the assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of the credit entry in his books and it is held that the relevant amount is income of the assessee, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source." The assessee has relied upon the judgment of Ld. ITAT Bench in the case of Gandhi Ram Village Sularh…

Shri Balkrishna Gajanan Thopte, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

ITA 3380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…upon by the appellant. In the case of the appellant, it has failed to satisfy the test of preponderance of human probabilities. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decision of the Hon'ble Courts viz, a) A Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC) b) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112(SC) c) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) e) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674(SC) f) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) It needs to be appreciated that what is essentially under cloud, and being ser…

Sh. Krishan Kumar, Khanna vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.175/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20 Shri Krishan Kumar, Vs. The DCIT, Prop., M/s Riwaz Jeweller, Central Circle-1, बनाम Karnail Singh Road, Ludhiana Subash Bazar, Khanna 141401 "थायीलेखासं./PAN No.AKRPK5188J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of H…

Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 999/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.999 & 1001/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle -1(1), Kolkata. Room No. 210, Martin Burn Building, 1, R. N. Mukherjee Vs. Road, Lal Bazar, Kolkata- 700001. (PAN: AAACG9883E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCA Respondent by : Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 20.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTA…

Alishan Steels (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1001/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.999 & 1001/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle -1(1), Kolkata. Room No. 210, Martin Burn Building, 1, R. N. Mukherjee Vs. Road, Lal Bazar, Kolkata- 700001. (PAN: AAACG9883E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCA Respondent by : Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 20.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTA…

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kaka Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ust prove the following: (i) the identity of the creditor. (ii) the capacity of the creditor to advance money, and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. 5.7 It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) that where the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount received during the accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. 5.8 It has been held in the case of Bharati Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 (Cal. And CIT Vs. United Com…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…s is precisely what the assessee ought to have done on receipt of Form 3CL, which reflected a much lower deduction; the primary burden to prove it’s returns and its claim for exemption/deduction being on the assessee (Govindarajulu Mudaliar (A.) v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (810)(SC); H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); CIT v. Joseph John [1968] 67 ITR 74 (SC)).This is a clear case of non-disclosure by the assessee, whose conduct in, though aware, maintaining silence, could in fact be regarded as dishonest. There is as such no correspondence between the facts of the two cases, only in…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…s is precisely what the assessee ought to have done on receipt of Form 3CL, which reflected a much lower deduction; the primary burden to prove it’s returns and its claim for exemption/deduction being on the assessee (Govindarajulu Mudaliar (A.) v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (810)(SC); H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); CIT v. Joseph John [1968] 67 ITR 74 (SC)).This is a clear case of non-disclosure by the assessee, whose conduct in, though aware, maintaining silence, could in fact be regarded as dishonest. There is as such no correspondence between the facts of the two cases, only in…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 87/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ar that the Assessing Officer had denied such set-off only on the ground that the deemed income u/s 69C does not fall within any category of income contained in section 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) held as under :- “there is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the Income Tax Officer is entitled to draw an inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature". Following the said observations in Lakhmi…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 86/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ar that the Assessing Officer had denied such set-off only on the ground that the deemed income u/s 69C does not fall within any category of income contained in section 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) held as under :- “there is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the Income Tax Officer is entitled to draw an inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature". Following the said observations in Lakhmi…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 85/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ar that the Assessing Officer had denied such set-off only on the ground that the deemed income u/s 69C does not fall within any category of income contained in section 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) held as under :- “there is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the Income Tax Officer is entitled to draw an inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature". Following the said observations in Lakhmi…