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

Vishan Raj Jain (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 193/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. (See : CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 SC (at pages 545, 547). Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif. Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, M. P. And Bhopal in 50 ITR 1 (SC) 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 absence of such proo…

Kalyan Sahai Gurjar, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), Jaipur

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

ITA 195/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 195/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Kalyan Sahai Gurjar S/o Surja Ram Gurjar Bhojera, Virat Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. CIT(A) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALMPG 1989 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Prajapat (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Prajapat (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 147

….. 5.3 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). This onus on the taxpayer has neither been discharged at the assessment stage nor at the appellate stage. 5.4 Therefore, in view of the above, the grounds no. 1 & 2 of appellant are dismissed. 6. Ground no. 3 raised by the appellant is related to total addition of Rs.4,69,950/- shown as Inco…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Edmond Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 96/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…T v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1995] 82 Taxman 31/[1994]208 ITR 465 (Cal.): 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 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…

ACIT Cir. 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manohar Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5222/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 68

…k statement of few subscribers of the shares. The Assessing Officer, referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC) and 3 M/s Manohar Capital Markets Ltd Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). On further appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made under section 68 for share capital and restricted the disallowance for commission expenses to the extent of 10%, which works out to Rs.7,78,790/- and balance addition was deleted. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as quoted above. 3. Before us,…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 01, Varanasi vs. Perfect Tecno Counsultants Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

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

ITA 139/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Perfect Techno Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, V. N-1/65-A, Narrotam Nagar Colony, M A Road, Varanasi- Nagwa, Lanka Varanasi-221005,U.P. 221002,U.P. Pan:Aagcp3236N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sh. Amalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Assessee By: Sh. Mohammad Ashraf, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Mohammad Ashraf, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. AmalenduNath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…satisfactorily explained, and the business income estimated by him under section 13 of the Income-tax Act, after rejecting the books of account of the assessee as unreliable. This was so decided in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). Whether in a given case the Income- tax Officer may tax the cash credit entered in the books of account of the business, and at the same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case.” So far as reliance on the case laws relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is concerned, they are not applicable to the fa…

PCIT-07, Delhi vs. M/S Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 135 / 2023HC Delhi07 Mar 2023
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ed additions. xxx xxx xxx 8.8 The onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti VS. crT (1997) 107 ITR 938 (SC). 8.9 It is also well settled that in the case of cash credit entry it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors but also to prove the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transaction. In C. Kant & Co. vs Commission…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited, Banderdewa

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

ITA 87/GTY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 80I

…T v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1995] 82 Taxman 31/[1994]208 ITR 465 (Cal.): 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 Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR Page 21 of 26 I.T.A. Nos.: 86 & 87/GTY/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited. 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited, Banderdewa

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

ITA 86/GTY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 80I

…T v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1995] 82 Taxman 31/[1994]208 ITR 465 (Cal.): 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 Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR Page 21 of 26 I.T.A. Nos.: 86 & 87/GTY/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited. 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…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

ITA 2665/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

…n in the case parties. The Ld. Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC) and Kale Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC) Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) han Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) etc. held all han Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) the 29 parties as unexplained cash credit the 29 parties as unexplained cash credit making addition of Rs. making addition of Rs. 31,47,15,562/- for AY 2013 for AY 2013-14 to AY 2018-19. The Assessing The Assessing Skyway Infra Projects…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…pression “nature and source” has to be understood together as a requirement of identification of the source and the nature of the source, so that the genuineness or otherwise could be inferred. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs.CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1, pointed out 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. If the prima facie inference on the fact is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the Revenue. As far as the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscribe…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4038/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…pression “nature and source” has to be understood together as a requirement of identification of the source and the nature of the source, so that the genuineness or otherwise could be inferred. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs.CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1, pointed out 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. If the prima facie inference on the fact is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the Revenue. As far as the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscribe…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3117/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 68

…pression “nature and source” has to be understood together as a requirement of identification of the source and the nature of the source, so that the genuineness or otherwise could be inferred. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs.CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1, pointed out 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. If the prima facie inference on the fact is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the Revenue. As far as the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscribe…

M/S. Dwarka Goods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…xman 31/[1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal.): Proof of Identity of the creditors; Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction 9 AY: 2016-17 M/s. Dwarka Goods Pvt. Ltd. This 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) 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…

M/S Starland Vinimay Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1995] 82 Taxman 31/[1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal.): 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 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…

Navroop Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 613/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 151 & 613/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Navroop Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-13(3), Kolkata (PAN: AADCN 8151 F) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 01.12.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 11.01.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri A.K. Tibriwal, FCA Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate "नधा"/रती क…

Navroop Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 151/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 151 & 613/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Navroop Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-13(3), Kolkata (PAN: AADCN 8151 F) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 01.12.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 11.01.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri A.K. Tibriwal, FCA Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate "नधा"/रती क…

Mr. Ganapathy Palaniyappan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle -8(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 557/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Ganapathy Palaniyappan, Dcit, T/D2 Anna Fruit Market, V. Non-Corporate Circle 8(1), Koyembedu, Chennai. Chennai – 600 092. [Pan: Ahppp-3037-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 69A

…followed but it :-6-: ITA. No:557/Chny/2022 is the person who has not availed any chances for the reasons best known to him.' 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di HattiVs.CIT(1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad HanifNs.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 the receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explain by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the asses…

Atul Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

ITA 1605/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.1605/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Atul Modi, v. ACIT, Circle-29(1), 22, Lower Ground Floor, New Delhi. Siri Fort Road, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AMDPM1864F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 04 01 2023 Date of pronouncement: 04 01 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-X…

Geeta Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. DCIT/ ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 285/JPR/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Ld. Pr. Cit, Jaipur For Obtaining Approval Inasmuch Assessee Has Purchased Geeta Devi Saini Vs Dcit,Circle-4, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 148Section 68

…ed to be self-generated and used to purchase the land. Hence the primary burden of proof is not in the given case. In this regard reference is made to the following judicial decisions - Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT 1963 50 ITR 1 SC has held 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 other 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 Income-tax Officer is e…

ITO, WD.-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mainak Suppliers Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoysarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri HukumaSema, CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…T v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1995) 82 Taxman 31/[1994]208 ITR 465 (Cal.): 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 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 ca…