Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra v. CIT

274 ITR 405High Court2005#8936 most cited

What is Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra v. CIT authority for?

Section 69 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable for a firm's assessment when there is a credit entry in the firm's books in a partner's name for which a satisfactory explanation is provided.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra v. CIT · section 69 · unexplained investment · firm assessment · credit entry · partner's name · satisfactory explanation · undisclosed income

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbsection 115bsection 115bbesection 115undisclosed incomesection 69section 11prescribedpersonsection 14businessdocument

Judgments citing Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra v. CIT

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…ghtly invoked as the incriminating material was seized from the office premises of assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR filed a detailed write-up on 20.05.2024. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra 274 ITR 405 to submit that the AO could not be precluded from assessing the income in the hands of genuine person. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 544/2005, 134/2014 & CM Appl. No. 5666/2014 order dated 12.09.2018) and various orders of Tribunal in cases of entry…

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…sources, though, invested had not been recorded in the assessee's books, than such income is liable to be assessed in terms of section 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. vii. In Roshan Lai Madan VS CIT 245 ITR (AT) 36 (Chandigarh) AND Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra Vs CIT 274 ITR 405 held that, "where firms books show credit in partners name for which there is no satisfactionery explanation, section 69 is not applicable for firm's assessment." viii. In Babu Lai C Borana 298 ITR 313 Bobmay High Court held that, "where the purchase transaction is recorded in regular books of accounts and the identity of vendor is disclosed, the…

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

…sources, though, invested had not been recorded in the assessee's books, than such income is liable to be assessed in terms of section 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. vii. In Roshan Lal Madan VS CIT 245 ITR (AT) 36 (Chandigarh) AND Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra Vs CIT 274 ITR 405 held that, "where firms books show credit in partners name for which there is no satisfactionery explanation, section 69 is not applicable for firm's assessment." viii. In Babu Lal C Borana 298 ITR 313 Bombay High Court held that, "where the purchase transaction is recorded in regular books of accounts and the identity of vendor is disclosed, the…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 473/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…dance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section the very sine qua non is that there should be any sum credited in the books of the Assessee…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 472/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…dance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section the very sine qua non is that there should be any sum credited in the books of the Assessee…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 471/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…dance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section the very sine qua non is that there should be any sum credited in the books of the Assessee…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 470/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…dance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section the very sine qua non is that there should be any sum credited in the books of the Assessee…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 469/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…dance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section the very sine qua non is that there should be any sum credited in the books of the Assessee…

Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 468/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 68

…dance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section the very sine qua non is that there should be any sum credited in the books of the Assessee…

Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 840/BANG/2022[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…dance with law. It is not a fit case for making addition under s. 68. -India Rice Mills vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All) and Surendra Mahan Seth vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 239 (All) concurred with; Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (All) 153: (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” 12.5 In view of the above, we direct the AO to delete all these additions made by him and sustained by CIT(A) as discussed above. 13. Next addition is with regard to unexplained loan/gift received from Smt. Geeta Rao at Rs.45,16,570/- Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru Page 19 of 29 Mrs. Geeta Rao, W/o Present Assessee – Rs.…

Verma Service Station, Firozabad vs. ACIT, Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 212/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 68

…during the appellate proceedings also the assessee could not file any evidence regarding cash receipts against advance of sale of land as also the partners were not produced to give their statements. 10. In the case of Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra vs. CIT (2005) 274 ITR 405 (All) wherevide para 20 and 21 held as under: “20. In the case of Jairamdass Lokesh Kumar (supra), the Rajasthan High Court has held that the assessment of different persons in respect of the same income will not absolve one from liability to be taxed. It has held as follows: “We are of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Supreme Cour…

M/S Sant Baba Bhag Singh Memorial Charitable Society, Jalandhar vs. D.C.I.T, Circle - 1 (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 432/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…g having come in, which therefore is to be satisfactorily explained as to its nature and source. In law, there is no bar for bringing the sum to tax in the hands of both, the creditor and the debtor, even as explained in Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra v. CIT [2005] 274 ITR 405 (All). On facts, it should though be possible to argue of ‘income’ in the hands of the creditor as being the source of the credit in the 18 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT debtor’s books. This is as once it is regarded as income in the hands of the creditor, it cannot possibly be regarded as unexplained in the hands of the debtor,…

Jaqmohan Ram Ram Chandra v. CIT (274 ITR 405) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax