How many judgments cite Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT?

581 judgments on BharatTax cite Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 69A, Section 147, Section 142(1).

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 367,154 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 68 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 250 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof source of source share capital and share premium survey under section 133a addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction section 69b live link entry operator

Judgments citing Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

Shailesh Jaiswal, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, - Katni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 166/JAB/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2005-06 Shailesh Jaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaiswal Dhaba, Ward-Katni, (M.P.) Kuthla Thana, Pureni, Katni (M.P.) [Pan: Adtpj 3555H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…d, validating the application of section 68 in terms of trite law, toward which we may cite some case law: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT v. P. Mohanakala & Ors. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) The addition, however, is to be restricted to Rs. 2,79,000, i.e., the aggregate amount of the cash credits. The balance cash deposited (i.e., Rs. 21,000), is s…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 802/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 802/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 ) The DCIT बनाम/ M/s.Rajesh Malleables Ltd. Circle-3(1) C/o. Anuj Mehta Vs. Ahmedabad Nandanvan Opp. Shapath-IV, Nr. Karnavati Club SG High Way Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCR 0270 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shr…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove the genuineness of borrowings since the relevant facts are exclusively within his knowledge. Even before the enactment of Section 68, this rule of evidence was applicable vide Kate Khan Mohammed Hanif CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) iv) Though the Assessing Officers, often, acts on confirmatory letters as evidence, the onus does not get discharged merely by such confirmatory letters as found in CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal). (vi) In the case of Kama! Motors v. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155 (Raj.), it was held that the respons…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1365/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…been explained and it has been held that for justifying any credits in books of account, the assessee must prove identity, capacity of the creditors and genuineness of creditors. In this context the decision reported in 131 Taxman 391 (2003), 49 ITR 112 (SC), 50 ITR 1 (SC), 98 ITR 337 (SC), 161 Taxman 169 (SC), 53 ITR 623 (SC) and 34 ITR 807 (SC) are relied upon and the ratio of judgements in those cases are applicable to the facts of the case under assessment. Under the circumstances these 4 credits amounting to Rs.38,31,03,071/- found unexplained and treated as undisclosed income of the assessee company for the…

ACIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. M/S. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan

ITA 910/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

…lse would know the facts better than the assessee itself." Further, it would be relevant to refer and to place reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court on this issue, which are as under: 4.6 CASH CREDIT (Sec. 68) (I) Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC):- "Whether the burden of proving the source of the cash credits is on the assessee?" 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 ans. of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If…

M/S. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Burdwan

ITA 1187/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

Upender Ganna, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 518/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…embedded therein. He made a similar prayer before the Tribunal as well. 6. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities and also placed reliance upon the following decisions: :- 4 -: i. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) [50 ITR 1] (SC); ii. CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath (1969) [72 ITR 194] (SC); iii. CIT Vs. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah (1979) [120 ITR 294] (AP); 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, I find that in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT (Supra), the assessee there-in was a trader, carrying on two businesses and he had submi…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. World Trade Park Ltd, Jaipur

Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1665/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rein it was held that reassessment is not meant for enquiry and requested the reassessment proceedings be dropped. 7. After considering the submissions of the assessee and by relying in the case of Roshan D Hatti (107 ITR 938 (SC)), Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif (50 ITR 1 6 I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 M/s World Trade Park Ltd (SC)), dismissed the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition to the extent of the cash not explained by the assessee i.e., to the extent of the booking amount received from the customers of the assessee under section 68 of the act. 8. Aggrieved with the above order, as…

DCIT Circle-1 vs. Rana Papers Ltd

ITA 2184/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

…plaining sources of deposits/ assessment particular etc. have been given. Merely filing of copies of ledger account cannot be treated as sufficient evidence to prove genuineness of a credit as held by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad 140 ITR 151 and Hon’ble SC 50 ITR 1. Reliance is also placed on 57 ITR 532, 53 ITR 623, 49 ITR 112, 35 ITR 416, 34 ITR 80(Al. SC. Judgment). In view of these facts unsecured loans of Rs. 1,19,63,549/- treated as unexplained and added to the income of the assessee. (Addition Rs. 1,19,63,549/-) Income Tax Expenses:- The assessee had debited income tax expenses at Rs. 58,415/- to the P…

Verma Service Station, Firozabad vs. ACIT, Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 212/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 68

…burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove the genuineness of borrowings since the relevant facts are exclusively within his knowledge. Even before the enactment of Section 68, this rule of evidence was applicable vide Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC). The expression "nature and source" in Section 68 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. 5.6.2 The onus does not get discharged merely by such confirmatory letters as found in CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co…

ACIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Krishnan Vidhyashankar, Chennai

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

ITA 2926/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. Philip George, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

…n of the AO. 2.5 The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO without following the principles as enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it is held that 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 for the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. 2.6 The CIT(A)…

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

…an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the AO is entitled to draw the inference that receipts are of assessable nature. Further, in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif 50 ITR 1. it has been held that if the assessee dispute celebrity for tax. it is for him to so either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act In the absence of such proof. the AO is entitled to treat it as a taxable income. In the case of Sreelekha Banerjee 49 ITR 112. the Supreme Court h…

Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4604/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Ward-23(2), Part-2, New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamcs0742A Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150(1)Section 68

…Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 Delhi " CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 206(2014) DLT 97 (DB)(DEL) " CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 " Seth Kalekhan Md. Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 " M.A. Unneerikutty Vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker.) " Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 " CIT vs. P. Mohankaia (2007) 291 ITR 278 " Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 " Shri Hersh W. Chadha, (Legal heir of Late Sh. W.N. Chadha) Vs. DDIT, Circle-1(1), ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Dei/2005 " CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.…

Shri Rayjibhai Ramanbhai Solanki, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1202/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1202/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…way of cash deposits in his bank account and the onus is on him to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and also establish the genuineness of the transaction. In Rosahn Di Hutti vs CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), it was held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been 9 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 assessee and no further…

Shivanand Komal Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1407/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha () Shi Shivanand Komal Singh Vs Dy.Cit, Cent.Cir.6, Mumbai Prop. M/S Chanchal Tube Corporation, 123/979, Motilal Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 017 Pan : Avfps0644A Appellant Respondednt

Section 153Section 153CSection 253

…at revenue is not in appeal against the reduction granted by the learned CIT-A. In our considered opinion Ld CIT-A has been fairly liberal in granting relief to the assessee. As held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of leave, Kale Khan H. Mohammed vs CIT 50 ITR 1, when assessee claims that a sum received is not taxable 3 ITA 1407/Mum/2017 onus is upon him to prove that the same is not exigible to tax. Here we find that assessee has indulged in bogus accommodation entries and has received huge turnover. The learned CIT-A is taxing only 0.85% as profit out of the same. In our considered opinion the assessee…

Shri Sanjiv Walia, Bathinda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 355/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 355/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 144Section 69A

…e’s accounts. Or, for that matter, bank deposits made outside the books of account. No doubt, the said proposition did not find favour with the Apex Court, as in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 94 (SC); Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), as well as, following the same, by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, as in Grover Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 312 (P&H). The Revenue, it may be appreciated, where deeming income u/s. 68 (or s. 69/69A), is under no obligation to show that the income is from a particular source (Roshan Di Hati vs. CIT [1977] 107/938 (SC);…

Mr Tarun Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6715/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…o explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not be entitled to benefit of peak credit. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC); ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC); and iii) Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT 49 ITR 112(SC). 10. So far as the decision of the Tribunal in the group cases is concerned, he submitted that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. 11. We have considered the ri…

Shri Nitin Raj Jain, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 68

…ries provided by these companies to the assessee. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has relied upon various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC). The decisions relied upon by the AO have been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest decision in case of Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., 412 ITR 161 (SC) 13. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. In the case in hand, the assessee has shown unsecured loan of Rs. 3,00,00,00…

Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1120/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…show that the income is from any particular source as 26 Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota Vs.The DCIT, Kota enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). 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 foun…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1205/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…td. Vs DCIT In view of the above, it is evident reliance placed by the Ld. AO on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dhakeswari (supra) is misconceived. (ii) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC): The reliance has been placed by the Ld. AO on the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court to substantiate that prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee and where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold th…