Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

50 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1963#103 most cited

What is Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT authority for?

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

581

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

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT · Kale Khan 50 ITR 1 · onus of proof assessee · unexplained cash credits · Section 68 addition · source of money explanation · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · unexplained income · taxable receipts · burden of proof cash credits · Section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 69ASection 147Section 142(1)Section 250Section 148

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumsurvey under section 133aaddition u/s 68addition under section 68share application moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 69blive linkentry operator

Judgments citing Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

Abhishekbhai Ashokbhai Patel, Kadi vs. The ITO, Ward 1, Mehsana

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

ITA 1803/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

…nking withdrawals to deposits or evidence of share trading activity was produced. Accordingly, relying on the provisions of section 69A and judicial precedents including CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition and dismissed Ground No. 1. In Ground No. 2, the assessee contended that since income from share transactions was below the taxable limit, return of income was not filed. The CIT(Appeals) held that this contention was irrelevant to the issue of unexplained cash deposits and that the assessee was under oblig…

Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T, Amravati Circle, Amravati

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 254/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 234ASection 234CSection 254(1)Section 69

…ding to demonetization month. The cash deposit of Rs. 2.75 crore till 16.11.2016 exhausted all the cash in hand. The cash deposit was immediately transferred to other account. The ld. CIT(A) also referred the decision of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) and SumatiDayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that nature of transaction has to be ascertained in the light of surrounding circumstances. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of ld. AO. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal be…

Raja Mohle, Kawardha vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per aforesaid terms

ITA 821/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raja Mohle Chote Ragra, Indauri, Kawardha-491 336 (C.G.) Pan: Bvrpm0901R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 69A

…essee/appellant failed to do the same both before the Assessing Officer and subsequently before the first Appellate Authority. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 wherein it was held that "If an 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". 8.2. In view of the above discussion, and bearing in mind the entirety of the case accompanied by t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Sanghvi Dhanrupji Devaji & Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6015/MUM/2025[AAQFS6338H]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sanghvi Dhanrupji Income Tax Central Circle Devaji & Co. 5(3), Mumbai 33, Mumba Devi Road, Room No. 426, 4Th Floor, Dagina Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaqfs6338H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M B Sanghvi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ground I - Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting/Allowing Relief In Respect Of The Addition Of Rs.

Section 250Section 40A(3)(a)Section 68

…d over for 15 to 20 days,, which the assessee could not substantiate with reasonable explanation. As enumerated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs Cil (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), it has been held in various judicial pronouncement that where the nature and source of any receipt/investment, whether it be a money or other property. cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open for the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is…

Income Tax-Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara vs. Amit Jayantibhai Patel, Vadodara

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

ITA 1957/AHD/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Who Deleted The Additions By Observing As Follows: (A) Addition On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S. 69A Of Rs.20,20,950/-

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…one by Ld. AO, there is no reason for no accepting the cash book entries. It is settled position that the onus is upon the appellant to prove genuineness of each and every transactions entered into. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an appellant, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the appellant an…

Jainam Ornament Private Limited, Gaya vs. Income Tax Officer, Gaya

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 145(3)Section 68

…confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO by observing and holding as under:- “1.3 I have perused the assessment order written submission of appellant as well as the various case laws relied upon. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kale Khan Moh. Haneef V/s CIT, Bhopal (50 ITR 1) held that- it is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money from to have been received by the assessee, is on him. If he disputes liability for tax it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proves, th…

Amar Singh Rathore Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 24/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 24/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Amar Singh Rathore Shikshan Samiti, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Netaji Chowk, Katora Talab, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur 492001 (C.G.) Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aacta3313N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

…058 and 13,52,670/-Appellant has not furnished any source of the cash deposited in bank nor has provided any details of any business activity carried out by it. 7.2 In the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT(SC)107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT (SC) 50 ITR 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the 4 Amar Singh Rat…

Deeya Agrotech Private Limited, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 492/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)

…5.4 Further, it is settled law that where the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the addition back into the income of assessee as held in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). This onus on the tax payer has neither been discharged at the assessment stage nor at the appellate stage. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order made by the Ld. AO. In this view of the matter, the order u/s 143(3)r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 11.06.2019 is confirmed. 6.0 In the result, the…

Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kasturi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3926/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, R. No. 316A, 3Rd Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बिाम Vs. Kasturi Jewellers P. Ltd., Gg-1/140A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aacck-7027-J

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Atul Puri, Chartered Accountant
Section 115BSection 139ASection 68

…Section 68 squarely applies where assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of any sum credited in its books. The onus is always on the assessee to establish identity of creditor, capacity, and genuineness (Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT 50 ITR 1 SC; Roshan Di Hatti v CIT 107 ITR 938 SC; Kamal Motors v CIT 131 Taxman 155 Raj; CIT v Oasis Hospitalities 333 ITR 119 Delhi). Assessee in the present case did not provide complete customer details or evidence of the purported sales' bona fides most cash sales were below 2 lakh, evidently to bypass mandatory PAN compliance per section 139A and Rules…

DCIT - CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 576/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

…993 SCC OnLine Cal 384: (1994) 208 ITR 465]: • Proof of identity of the creditors; • Capacity of creditors to advance money; and • Genuineness of transaction This Court in the landmark case of Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT [Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT, (1963) 50 ITR 1] and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT, (1977) 2 SCC 378: 1977 SCC (Tax) 292: (1977) 107 ITR 938] laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and Mangalk…

Mahtab Chand Agarwal, Lucknow vs. DCIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 515/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Mahtab Chand Agarwal, V. The Dcit-6 15, Ajanta Market, Near P.K. Complex, Ram Gurdwara, Nishatganj, Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226010. Lucknow-208001. Pan:Aeipa6452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 04 11 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 01 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…plained cash credits. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Oceanic Products exporting Co. vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 497 (Ker) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 and in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) to hold that the explanation submitted by the assessee for the cash deposits in his bank account was not satisfactory, and therefore, added back a sum of Rs.36,07,338/- u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee went before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) records in his o…

Sanowar Ali Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1503/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 282

…. CIT(A) who, regarding Ground Nos. 3 to 8, has discussed the provisions of sections 68 and 69A of the Act and relying upon the judicial pronouncements rendered in (i) Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC), (ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), (iii) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC), (iv) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and (v) CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC), has held as under: “8.8 In the present case it is seen that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as per the findings of the A.O. in…

Geeta Babu Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 138/MUM/2026[AY 2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 292BSection 68

…charging its burden to prove the same then the onus shifts on the department to disprove the same, which has not been done in this case. On this preposition, we find support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalekhan Mohd Hanif v. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that the onus on the assessee has to be understood with reference to the facts of each case and proper inference drawn from the facts. The law of section 68 of the Act is not different. If the prima facie inference on the fact is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the Revenue. 6. Further Reli…

Asstt. Commisioner, Mumbai vs. Supreme Lake View Bungalows Private Limited, Powai, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5735/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…However,the facts on record nowhere establishes that such further inquiries /investigations have subsequently been conducted by Ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition, we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Hatti Vs.CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 78]. It is trite law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. 5.4 Upon due consideration of the factual matr…

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Mallics Jewels, Lucknow

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

ITA 312/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 68

…on of Rs.2,75,00,000/- which was made u/s 68 of the LT.Act as unexplained cash credits in the books of account of the assesse as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving its source as explained in the case of 'Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 SC, Roshan Di Hatti V CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)', 'Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and others Vs CIT, Bihar & Orissa, reported in 1964 AIR 697, dated 27.03.1963', 'SumatiDaln V CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC)' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax V Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC)'. 2. The appellant crave leaves to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of appeal,…

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax- Jalgaon

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

ITA 1948/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1948/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 R B Diamond House, Opposite Manohar Sarees, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon-425001 Pan : Aaifr9130Q Vs. Pne-C-1, Range-25, Circle-1, Cit, Jalgaon अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- "Ground No. 1: Ex-Parte Order Bad In Law 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ex Parte Order Passed By Cit(A)/ Nafc Is Bad In Law & Violates Principles Of Natural Justice. This Has Lead To A Denial Of Effective Opportunity For A Hearing. Ground No. 2: Violation Of Section 250(6) 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A)/ Nafc Failed To Comply With Section 250(6), Requiring Reasoned Findings On Each Ground Of Appeal. Ground No. 3: Non-Response Of Notices Due To Medical Issue 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hearing Notices Were Not Responded To Due To The Illness Of Ms. Rupal Bagrecha Who Is Taking Care Of Accounting, All Income Tax & Other Statutory Compliances. Her E-Mail Id Rupalbagrecha21@Gmail.Com Is Registered On The Income Tax Portal. She Was Suffering From Severe Symptoms Of Epilepsy & Undergoing Medical Investigation From February 2025 Onwards, Preventing Timely Communication Of Notices To The Tax Consultant, Constituting Reasonable & Sufficient Cause For Non-Response.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 250(6)Section 69A

…. 3.4.1 It is settled law that where the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee as held in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). The appellant has failed and therefore the grounds hold no merit and are dismissed. 3.5 It is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Cour…

Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2195/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ficer was justified Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 5– in treating the cash deposits as unexplained. In this context, the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), wherein it was held that the burden of proving the source of a sum of money found credited in the books or received by the assessee is on the assessee. Further reliance was placed on PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the ass…

Venkata Narasimham Thota, Kirlampudi Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 207/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.207/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Venkata Narasimham Thota, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Veeravaram, Kirlampudi. Ward-2, Pan: Achpt2895H Kakinada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…eing unrebutted, that evidence can be used against him by holding that it was its unaccounted income. The very words "an undisclosed source show that the disclosure must come from the assessee and not from the Department". Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) "It is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Inco…

Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. No.546/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Rakesh Jain Vs Dcit - 26(1) Shop No. 29, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 126-128, Sheikh Menon Bandra, Mumbai St., Trimurti Estate, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Pan – Aaιρj7359P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By | Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By || Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt.28.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No.546/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Rakesh Jain Vs DCIT - 26(1) Shop No. 29, 2nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 126-128, Sheikh Menon Bandra, Mumbai St., Trimurti Estate, Kalbadevi, Mumbai PAN – AAΙΡJ7359P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by | Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by || Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned o…

Manoj Anand, Guwahati vs. ITO W-2(2) Ghy, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…e ld. AO were provided to the assessee. Therefore, the same could not be used against the assessee to make the additions. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan-Di-hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938, Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254, PCIT Vs. Sreeleathers (2022) 448 ITR 332. 3.4. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is bad in law even on the ground of violation of natural justice. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO collected the material and stateme…