I. CIT v. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal)

125 ITR 336High Court1980#10828 most cited

What is I. CIT v. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal) authority for?

If an assessee fails to prove the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of donors, the onus cast upon them under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not discharged. When sums are credited in an assessee's books, and no satisfactory explanation is provided for their nature and source, such sums can be charged to income tax as the income of that previous year.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Ashok Timber Industries · section 68 · IT Act 1961 · cash credits · unexplained income · genuineness of transactions · creditworthiness of donors · onus of proof · explanation of source · assessing officer satisfaction

Judgments citing I. CIT v. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal)

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…been followed subsequently by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kapur Bros. [1979] 118 ITR 741, and without making a reference to that decision, by another decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Timber Industries [1980] 125 ITR 336 . 12. We feel tempted in taking an extract from the decision of this Court in Hardwarmal's case (supra) where Untwalia, J. speaking for the Bench said thus: "There was no provision in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, corresponding to section 68 of the Act. Section 68, however, was enacted, as it appears, mainly to give a statutory recognition to…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Meerut

ITA 4623/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Circle-2, Educational & Social Meerut Welfare Trust, A-217, Defence Colony, Meerut Pan: Aahts6246H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115Section 115BSection 12Section 68

…ee also failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the donors and assessee did not discharge the onus cast on it u/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:- I. CIT Vs. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal) 125 ITR 336 II. Basantipur Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 180 ITR 261 III. CIT v/s Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. IV. “Krishan Kumar Jhanb v/s ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249” V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. VI. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR…

Arjun Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Firozabad vs. I.T.O.-5(1), Firozabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 290/AGR/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 68

…o be perused in the light of the peculiar facts it presents and as duly brought on record by the AO. In this it is relevant to refer to a subsequent decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Timber Industries reported as 125 ITR 336 (Cal.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court while considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Heavy Engineering & Construction (supra), and answering the undernoted question of law which was based upon the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as under:- "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Space Age Research & Technology Foundation Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…oved. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the donors and did not discharge the onus cast on it u/s 68 of IT ct, 1961. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:- I. CIT Vs. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal) 125 ITR 336 II. Basantipur Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 180 ITR 261 III. CIT v/s Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. IV. "Krishan Kumar Jhanb v/s ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249" V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. VI. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (S…

C.P. Arya Public School Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K. Saini, Am Asstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 12ASection 68

…it is very much clear that loan was taken in earlier years. No amount has been taken during the financial year in question. C. The reliance is placed in case of CIT vs. Hanumandas Maheshwari (1975) Tax Lr 109 (Ori) and CIT vs. Ashok Timber Industries (1980) 125 ITR 336 (Cal) in which it was held: “ where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained at any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature & source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the (assessing) officer, 4 C.P.Arya Public School Samiti satisfactory, the sum so credite…

DDIT(It) - 2(1), Kolkata. vs. Raj Narayan Sinha, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 867/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 49Section 55(2)(b)

…ken by the income-tax authority in this case by adding the amount in the income of the assessee and again accepting the same at the hands of the partners, the income-tax authority cannot fall back on one and reject the other. In Ashok Timber Industries [1980] 125 ITR 336 (Cal), in a similar circumstance, it was held that it could have been treated to be an income of the following previous year when it I shown as the opening balance of that previous year. Thus, also, two views are possible. When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in a penalty proceedings, penalty cannot b…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S Vats Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

ITA 2776/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Soanbhadra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Garg, Adv

…he lenders with respect to the amounts allegedly given as the loans. Onus to prove such creditworthiness was entirely upon the assessee which totally remained undischarged. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: 2 I. Basantipur Tea Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 180 ITR 261(Cal) II. "Krishan Kumar Jhanb vis ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249" III. Mis Sejai International Ltd vis CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. IV. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) V. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VI. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) VII. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) VI…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Kastoori Devi Foundation, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5098/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Kalra, Adv
Section 11Section 115Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 68

…the addition without examining the donors on his own and without satisfying any of the 3 ingredients viz. identity creditworthiness and genuineness of alleged donors. (c) Reliance is placed on the following case laws:- CIT Vs. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal) 125 ITR 336 I. Basantipur Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 180 ITR 261 II. CIT v/s Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. III. “Krishan Kumar Jhanb v/s ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) IV. 17 DTR 249” M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (AH.) Appeal V. No.306 of 2010. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VI. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 2…

ITO, Meerut vs. Shri Mahesh Chand Saini, Meerut

ITA 3874/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. GOEL, ADV. & SH. K.KFor Respondent: Sh. P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…posits was earlier cash withdrawal, for which no evidence was produced by the assessee. Thus, the assessee did not discharge the onus cast on him uls 68 of IT Act, 1961. Reliance is placed on the following case laws;- I. CIT Vs. Ashok Timber Industries (Cal) 125 ITR 336 II. Basantipur Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 180 ITR 261 III. CIT vis Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. IV. Krishan Kumar Jhanb v/s ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249" V. M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of2010. VI. CIT V s Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) VII. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 27…

Mr. Krishan Kumar Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, I confirm the additions and dismiss the appeal of the assessee

ITA 2406/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2007-08 Krishan Kumar Bansal Vs. Ito, Ward 28(1) 3856/4, Shahganj New Delhi Behind Gb Road Delhi 110 006 Pan: Aenpb 2665 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar and Sh. Sumit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. MK Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 68

…cing bogus cash. He submitted that the assessee never paid any cash to these parties on the dates and during the period claimed by the two parties. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka Timber reported in 125 ITR 336 (Cal.) and the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. reported in 222 ITR 345 (SC) and made an addition of these three amounts. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate Authority considered the various submissions of the assessee and confirmed the additions made by th…