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

Prem Prasad, Malda vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Malda

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

ITA 12/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

…d out. The assessment order was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) as there was no representation. 9. As regards the issue relating to double additions, similar issue came up for consideration in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: 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 provisio…

Gilt Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1447/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

…e Supreme 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 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 Page 15 of 26 I.T.A. No.: 1447/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 20…

Jade Granites Industries, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 81/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…aring the accounts in the name of the third parties were derived by them, would be placing a burden, on the firm as well as the partners, which is not required or justified by law. The court further observed: "This case (Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) has no application where the money In question stands in the name of a third party and not in the name of the assessee." "In the current 1961 Act, because of section 68 the position has changed a little. Now, there is a cash credit in the name of a partner in the books of his firm, section 68 says that the firm has to explain the nature and so…

J C Home Tex, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7, Jaipur

ITA 292/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…rce and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature." 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…

M/S. L.B. Kunjir, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

…er 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. 20. It is also important to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 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. L.B. Kunjir, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

…er 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. 20. It is also important to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune vs. Lb Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

…er 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. 20. It is also important to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 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…

DCIT, Pune vs. L B Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

…er 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. 20. It is also important to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 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…

DCIT Circle 7, Bodhi Tower Salisbury Park vs. L B Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

…er 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. 20. It is also important to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 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…

Florence Dealer Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 837/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

…e reliance of the Ld. DR on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” (supra) 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) 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 credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and cal…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…me of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source as enumerated the Hon'ble Supreme court n the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). The Human Probability Tests were laid down for the first time in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) as: “11. The Tribunal disbelieved the story, which is, prima facie, a fantastic story. It is a story that does not accord with human probabilities. It is strange that the High Court found fault with the Tribunal for n…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…me of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source as enumerated the Hon'ble Supreme court n the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). The Human Probability Tests were laid down for the first time in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) as: “11. The Tribunal disbelieved the story, which is, prima facie, a fantastic story. It is a story that does not accord with human probabilities. It is strange that the High Court found fault with the Tribunal for n…

Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68

…DIA A. GovindarajuluMudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 3 [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More 4 [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Mohanakala 5 [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax 6 [2019] 109 taxmann.com 53 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NDR Promoters (P.) Ltd.v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 7 [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax 8 [1963] 49 ITR112 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Sreelek…

Shrey Associates, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

26. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, finding merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee as regards the only challenge to the addition of Rs

ITA 127/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM, SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (I.T.P.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ne go, and accordingly, contended that authorities below have misconceived facts of the following cases:- (1) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540. (2) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 1995 AIR 2109, 1995 SCC Supl.(2) 453. (3) Kale Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), and 8 Shrey Associates vs. ACIT (4) Roshan D-Hatti vs. CIT, (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC). 20. As per assessment order, the Assessing Officer took into consideration certain facts so as to reject the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act, while observing that same were not verifiable. 21. Learned Assessing Officer observed that t…

M/S Mobilink vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2) Asansol and Anr

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/74/2024HC Calcutta21 Jun 2024

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 21St June, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Avra Majumder, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Respondent.

Section 260A

…ement and other relevant details the alleged cash deposit in the bank account of the alleged cash creditors is doubtful. The learned Tribunal also took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 [SC] in which it has been held that the onus of proving the source sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal after re-appreciating the factual position held that the assessee had not proved the three ingredients which they were bound to prove. Thus, we find no substantial question of law aris…

M/S. Sanjay Gold Palace, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 6(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1629/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1629/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sanjay Gold Palace, V. Non-Corporate Ward 6(3), Shop No. 16/A, Nsc Bose Road, Chennai – 600 006. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. [Pan: Adcfs-8067-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69B

…onth of October and also cash sales from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016. However, the ld.AO was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and also relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohamed Hanif reported in 50 ITR 1 [1963], having made an addition of total cash deposits of Rs.30,00,000/- to tax u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2019. :-3-: ITA. No: 1629/Chny/2023 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated tha…

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Fatehabad vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

…ounts and the source from where it was derived was not declared, the same was assessable as deemed income u/s 69A of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 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 assessee is on him. Where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other properly, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the asses…

Amarpadma Credits Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Baid, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

…Even prior to the insertion of the said section or its predecessor, there were ample authorities to the same effect as section 68. In this regard, one may profitably refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kale. Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT - [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the Court has held as under. "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 4 Amarpadma Credits Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 2017-18 disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was ex…

ITO, Ward-1, Narnaul vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Narnaul

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

ITA 944/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

…eposits is on the assessee both in the case of cash credit and money deposited in the bank account, as held in the following decisions- The Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) 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 assessee is on him Where 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 asses…

ITO, Ward-1, Narnaul vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Narnaul

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

ITA 943/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

…eposits is on the assessee both in the case of cash credit and money deposited in the bank account, as held in the following decisions- The Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) 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 assessee is on him Where 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 asses…