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

M/S Shankar Rice & General Mills, Moga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

…[IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 205/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Shankar Rice & Gen. Mills, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Baghapurana Road, Nihal Singh Tax, Circle, Moga Wala, Distt. Moga, 142055, Punjab [PAN: AAOFS 5070Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, CAs Respondent by : Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 03.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This captioned appeal has bee…

Veshnawy Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 887/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…share subscriber companies as well as their creditworthiness to have invested in the assessee-company. The third limb which needs to be examined is genuineness of the transaction. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif –vs.- CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) has held that 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 exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income Tax Officer is entitled…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…towards cash credits which are not explained or which are not properly explained. This is because the source of the former is business whereas for the latter the Department does not have to locate any particular source [Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) impliedly overruling Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 301 (Pat) and impliedly approving Srinivas Ramkumar vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 254 (Pat) and G.M. Chenna Basappa vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 576 (AP) on this point]. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the ITO having assessed the income of the assessee on a percentage basis, w…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1514/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…towards cash credits which are not explained or which are not properly explained. This is because the source of the former is business whereas for the latter the Department does not have to locate any particular source [Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) impliedly overruling Ramcharitar Ram Harihar Prasad vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 301 (Pat) and impliedly approving Srinivas Ramkumar vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 254 (Pat) and G.M. Chenna Basappa vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 576 (AP) on this point]. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the ITO having assessed the income of the assessee on a percentage basis, w…

Mobilink, Asansol vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(2), Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 41/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Swati Baid, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…cash deposit in the bank account of the alleged cash creditors remains in doubt. Therefore, in order to examine whether the nature and source of cash credit is explained by the assessee, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) laid 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 an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking…

Ranjeet Sharma, Rawatsar vs. ITO, Ward Nohar, Hanumangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 148Section 68

…ven notice sent u/s. 131 by the AO also were not complied by these factories. Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. 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 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…

M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 753/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2012-13 M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito N-18, First Floor, Ward-15(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017 Pan Aabcl9997R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 68

…evidence available in the form of credit entry in its books, it can be added as Income. This has been the consistent judicial interpretation of section 68 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Govindaraju Mudaliyar (34 ITR 807), Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif (50 ITR 1), Devi Prasad Biswanath Prasad (72 ITR 194), Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) and so on. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Mohana Kala (291 ITR 278) explains the meaning of the expression 'the assessee offers no explanation' appearing in section 68 to mean that the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation. It was held that the op…

Sonam Rajesh Rateria, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4030/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Sh.. Anurag Tripathi, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…the same reasoning as given by the assessing officer and by relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif Vs Commissioner of Income Tax M.P. and Bhopal in 50 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that "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 absenc…

Aman Exports International, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…nce (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31, laid down that an assessee is expected to establish Identity of creditors Capacity of creditors to advance money Genuineness of transaction• The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 held that the onus on the assessee has to be understood with reference to the facts of each case. If the prima facie inference on the fact is that assessee's explanation is satisfactory, the onus shifts to the Revenue. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Anurag Agarwal [2015] 229 Taxman 532 ruled in favour of assessee. Where in respect of cre…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu vs. M/S Mohd Asraf Sheikh, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 212/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Vinay Jamwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

…th respect to the issue of genuineness of transaction, it is for the assessee to prove by cogent and credible evidence, that the investments made in share capital are genuine borrowings, since the facts are exclusively within the assessee’s knowledge. [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) [1977] 107 ITR (SC) The Delhi High Court in C1T v. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. 5, held that: “The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when t…

The Income Tax Officer, Samba vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Samba

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

ITA 475/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 80I

…Ld. CIT(A) was correct in-law in deleting the addition of Rs31.35,200/-on account of unexplained credits even though judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of case of Roshan Di Haiti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) clearly I.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 4 Assessment Year: 2013-14 lays down that the onus of providing the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. It had further held that where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it e of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it i…

Pinky Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 984/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद" के सम" Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 982/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd....………………...............Appellant [PAN: AABCG 1634 L] Vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata.................................................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 983/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust....…...................................Appellant [PAN: AA…

M/S. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 983/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद" के सम" Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 982/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd....………………...............Appellant [PAN: AABCG 1634 L] Vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata.................................................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 983/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust....…...................................Appellant [PAN: AA…

M/S. Gateway Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 982/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद" के सम" Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 982/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd....………………...............Appellant [PAN: AABCG 1634 L] Vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata.................................................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 983/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust....…...................................Appellant [PAN: AA…

Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद" के सम" Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 982/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd....………………...............Appellant [PAN: AABCG 1634 L] Vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata.................................................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 983/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust....…...................................Appellant [PAN: AA…

Subhdhan Financial Advisory Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2198/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2198/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subhdhan Financial Advisory Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4) Private Limited Vs C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate 19D, Muktaram Babu Street Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aamcs7818P] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(A) 15, Kolkata Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15, Erred In Confirming The Action Of Income-Tax Officer Adding A Sum Of Rs.72,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The I T Act 1961. 3. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…judgment PCIT(Central)-1, Kolkata vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case 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 a…

Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2286/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

Section 14ASection 250

…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 I.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd 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…

Rajan Janardhan Ghadge, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-6(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 780/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryrajan Janardhan Ghadge Versus Ito Ward -6(2)(1), Flat No. 604, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Samartha Aangan 111A, M.K. Road, Azad Nagar, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aalpg1327K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…o have discharged the burden of proving of it, which then shits to the AO/Assessing Authority.” 6.1 The Ld. Commissioner by noting the provisions of section 68 and various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court which includes Kale Khan, Md. Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held “It is well established that the onus of proving the source of some 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 5 ITA No. 780/Mum/2023-Rajan Janardhan Ghadge was, it was exempt from taxation unde…

M/S Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…judgment PCIT(Central)-1, Kolkata vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case 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 a…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…edit in the assessee’s accounts or an unexplained asset found with it, for which reference is made to CIT vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar (M.) [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), cited during hearing itself. Reference may also be made to Seth Kale Khan Mohamed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC). In the facts of both these cases, the assessee’s business income was estimated consequent to rejection of it’s books of account as unreliable. The Revenue also bringing to tax unexplained credit/s therein, challenged by the assessee on that basis, the Apex Court explained that the…