What is J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar authority for?

An assessee found to be the owner of bullion, etc., must explain its source. The Income Tax Officer must find the assessee to be the owner, not merely in possession.

How many judgments cite J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar?

58 judgments on BharatTax cite J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar (94 ITR 616), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 5(2), Section 9, Section 6, Section 147, Section 5, Section 149(1)(c).

J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar (94 ITR 616)

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

…ld not have been applied. Apart from relying upon express language of section 69A of the Act (as reproduced above) the appellant begs to refer and rely upon a decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar Vs. V.B. Palekar reported in (1973) 94 ITR 616 wherein at page 650 the Hon'ble court observed and held as under:- "Now, it is significant that section 69A speaks of "found to be the owner of .........bullion......... It does not say "found to be in possession, of bullion......... If the legislature had intended that mere possession of gold, etc., would cast an obligation on the possessor to ex…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Shyam Sunder Tobacco Company, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 490/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.490/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shyam Sunder Tobacco Income Tax, Company, Central Circle-1, Guntur. Cr Buildings, K V Thota, Pan: Aaifs2024E Guntur-522004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 18/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 25/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 651

…nding authority is made conclusive by law". 15. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing relief without applying the decision of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 38 Taxman 190/172 ITR 250 (SC), the apex court upheld the finding of J.S. Parker v. V.B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616 (Bom.) it was held that though the income tax authorities are not strictly bound by the rigors of technical rules of evidence, they are not precluded from invoking the principles contained in the Evidence Act whenever the occasion demands. Although the decision was rendered in the context of Section 110 of the Evidence Act. 16. The Ld.CIT(A) erred…

Jawaharlal Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…umbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available. No direct evidence can be expected... In case of JS Parker 94 ITR 616 (Bom) it was held that “the tax liability under the Income tax Act is of civil nature. To fasten a tax payer within such a liability it is not necessary that the evidence should be in the nature of “beyond doubt” as is required to fix a criminal liability. Tax liability can be fastened on the basis of preponderance of probabilities” 17. In view of…

Sham Gulabrai Tulsyani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 483/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…umbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available. No direct evidence can be expected... In case of JS Parker 94 ITR 616 (Bom) it was held that “the tax liability under the Income tax Act is of civil nature. To fasten a tax payer within such a liability it is not necessary that the evidence should be in the nature of “beyond doubt” as is required to fix a criminal liability. Tax liability can be fastened on the basis of preponderance of probabilities” 17. In view o…

Naraindas Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 464/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…umbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available. No direct evidence can be expected... In case of JS Parker 94 ITR 616 (Bom) it was held that “the tax liability under the Income tax Act is of civil nature. To fasten a tax payer within such a liability it is not necessary that the evidence should be in the nature of “beyond doubt” as is required to fix a criminal liability. Tax liability can be fastened on the basis of preponderance of probabilities” 17. In view of…

Naraindas Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 463/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…umbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available. No direct evidence can be expected... In case of JS Parker 94 ITR 616 (Bom) it was held that “the tax liability under the Income tax Act is of civil nature. To fasten a tax payer within such a liability it is not necessary that the evidence should be in the nature of “beyond doubt” as is required to fix a criminal liability. Tax liability can be fastened on the basis of preponderance of probabilities” 17. In view of…

Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 449/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…umbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available. No direct evidence can be expected... In case of JS Parker 94 ITR 616 (Bom) it was held that “the tax liability under the Income tax Act is of civil nature. To fasten a tax payer within such a liability it is not necessary that the evidence should be in the nature of “beyond doubt” as is required to fix a criminal liability. Tax liability can be fastened on the basis of preponderance of probabilities” 17. In view of…

Arun Ashar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6875/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R

Section 132(4)Section 69A

…elong to the petitioner. Hence, the High Court held, and in our opinion rightly, that the value of the wrist-watches is the income of the assessee." 30. After referring to the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay reported in J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616, which dealt with seizure of gold, the Court, held as follows : "6. There a contention was raised that the provision in section 110 of the Evidence Act where a person was found in possession of anything, the onus of proving that he was not the owner was on the person who affirmed that he was not the owner, was incorrect and inapplicable to taxatio…

Arun Ashar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6874/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R

Section 132(4)Section 69A

…elong to the petitioner. Hence, the High Court held, and in our opinion rightly, that the value of the wrist-watches is the income of the assessee." 30. After referring to the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay reported in J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616, which dealt with seizure of gold, the Court, held as follows : "6. There a contention was raised that the provision in section 110 of the Evidence Act where a person was found in possession of anything, the onus of proving that he was not the owner was on the person who affirmed आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I.T.A. No. 6874 & 6…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year: 1992-93 & 1993-94) Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, ACIT, Vs. 19/431, Satyagrah Chhavni Circle 4(2), Society, B/h. Sivanand Ashram, Ahmedabad Satellite Road, Ahmedabad- 380015 PAN : AJVPS 6793 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in person Respondent by: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : These two…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year: 1992-93 & 1993-94) Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, ACIT, Vs. 19/431, Satyagrah Chhavni Circle 4(2), Society, B/h. Sivanand Ashram, Ahmedabad Satellite Road, Ahmedabad- 380015 PAN : AJVPS 6793 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in person Respondent by: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : These two…

ITO, W-6(5), Mohali vs. Smt. Gurdev Kaur, Kharar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1448/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

…mal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 1988 AIR 1384, 1988 SCR (3) 788 : (1988) 172ITR 250 (SC). The Hon 'ble Supreme Court while holding so referred to and approved the observations made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.S.Parker v. V.B. Palekar, 94 ITR 616 holding that what was meant by saying that the Evidence Act did not apply to proceedings under the Income Tax Act was that the rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, was not applicable but that does not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous in invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before th…

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

…mal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 1988 AIR 1384, 1988 SCR (3) 788 : (1988) 172ITR 250 (SC). The Hon 'ble Supreme Court while holding so referred to and approved the observations made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.S.Parker v. V.B. Palekar, 94 ITR 616 holding that what was meant by saying that the Evidence Act did not apply to proceedings under the Income Tax Act was that the rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, was not applicable but that does not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous in invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before th…

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

…mal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 1988 AIR 1384, 1988 SCR (3) 788 : (1988) 172ITR 250 (SC). The Hon 'ble Supreme Court while holding so referred to and approved the observations made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.S.Parker v. V.B. Palekar, 94 ITR 616 holding that what was meant by saying that the Evidence Act did not apply to proceedings under the Income Tax Act was that the rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, was not applicable but that does not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous in invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before th…