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 367,181 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

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…r section 69A. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. Relevant portion from following case laws are extracted below: 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) iii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC) iv. CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC) {Learned CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant extracts from the orders which are not being reproduced here} 7.5 From a careful perusal of the above decisions, it is established that primary onus…

Zula Merchandisc Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 68

…preme Court in the case of NRA Steelin the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48(SC) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the the land mark case of “Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT”[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and“Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT” [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition 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 credit- worthiness, then the AO must conduct…

Silverlake Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…normal banking channels, etc. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from a legal perspective and some of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “■ This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an i…

Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 99/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Supreme Court in the case of NRA Steel in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48(SC) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the land mark case of “Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT”[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and “Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT” [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition 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 credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct…

Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 100/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Supreme Court in the case of NRA Steel in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48(SC) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the land mark case of “Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT”[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and “Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT” [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition 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 credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…documents relating the Suppression of rental receipts so as ground no.4 remain sustained as per assessment order dated 26.12.2019. 2.5 Also, the relevant case laws are as per table below: Sl. No Case laws Page No. 1. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(Supreme Court of India) 1-5 2. CIT vs. Precision Fianance (P.) Ltd.[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Calcutta) High Court of 6-8 Calcutta/ 208 ITR 465 3. Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 [2003]264 ITR 254(High 9-17 Court of Gauhati) 4. CIT Vs. Korley Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (High Court of Calcutta) 18-19 5. Kamal Motors vs. CIT [2003]…

Divya Agrofood Product Private Limited, Kota Rajasthan vs. DCIT, ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

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

ITA 851/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

…ss. 3.4 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 true 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 Court…

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…DIA A. GovindarajuluMudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 4 [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. 5 Mohanakala 6 [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax 37 Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 7 [2019] 109 taxmann.com 53 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NDR Promoters (P.) Ltd.v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax 8 9 [1995]…

Shobna Agarwal, Ajmer Road Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 226/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Agarwal vs ACIT-2, Jaipur In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- x x x x In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC)[08-02-1963] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "It seems to us that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and that is how it was answered by the High Court. 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…

Elegant Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, with Ground No

ITA 51/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

…gh normal banking channels, etc. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from a legal perspective and some of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an i…

Grafton Merchant Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)/Kolkata

ITA 230/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 131Section 250Section 263Section 68

…rough normal banking channels, etc. in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from legal perspective and sum of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an i…

Champion Builder Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 462/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…ed to the AO to prove otherwise. o In response to notice u/s 133(6) Tuberose Agencies Pvt. Ltd had filed reply with supporting documents. o The AO without any adverse finding on the materials on record has made the addition. Kale Khan Mohd. Hainif reported in 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti 107 ITR 38 (SC). o The loans were interest bearing and interest debited in books on which tax was deducted at source and deposited. Even though disallowance has been made for loan received there is no disallowance of interest paid. Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahd) wherein it was observed that it was unusual that the…

Decent Industries P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 356/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…on is not acceptable, the material and attending circumstances available on record do not justify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature”. (c) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR (SC) held that:- “the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, 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 assessee and no further burden is on the revenue to…

Mohd Umeed, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 327/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 694Section 69A

…tered. Therefore, the source of cash deposits with respect to the cash sates cannot be accepted. 7. The AO placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 and KaleKhan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (SC) 50 ITR 1 wherein it was held that the onus of providing the source of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him and when the nature and source of a receipt cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1342/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…sessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer: Proof of identity of the creditors; Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an i…

Saket M Jain (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application-Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 250

…145 of the Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.63,56,669/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Peak Credit wrongly applying the decisions in the case of Kalekhan reported in 50 ITR 1 and 3 I.T.A No.314/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. Saket M Jain(HUF) Lakhmichand reported in 35 ITR 416 though the facts in present case are distinguishable. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.48,383/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed interest on income t…

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tarmat Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3106/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit 13(3)(2), Tarmat Limited Room No. 229, Roman Tarmat Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, General Vaidya Marg, M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aaact1561G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 153Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

…the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature i.e., concealment of income. Hence, the ratio of the said case has no application on the present facts of the case. c) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (Hon'ble SC) It was held that the assessee has to prove that third party was in a position to lend such sums and that he did, in fact, so lend to the assessee in order to satisfy the Income-tax Officer that the credits shown in the account books were genuine. In the present case, the appellant has proved that the parties are not unrelated and also t…

Yash Construction Co., Latur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 677/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 250Section 69C

…r section 14, then it would be classified as deemed income and shall be taxed as per the rates provided under section 115BBE of the Act. 4.13 It is also important to mention here that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963J 50 ITR 1 (SC) held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of proof, the tax officer is enti…

Yash Construction Co., Nanded vs. ACIT, Circle, Nanded

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 250Section 69C

…r section 14, then it would be classified as deemed income and shall be taxed as per the rates provided under section 115BBE of the Act. 4.13 It is also important to mention here that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963J 50 ITR 1 (SC) held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of proof, the tax officer is enti…

M/S. Nexcare Agency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 35/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…normal banking channels, etc. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from a legal perspective and some of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “■ This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an i…