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 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Rajasthan Cable Industries Limited, Kota

ITA 1189/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dhakeswari (supra) is misconceived. 17. With regard to reliance placed by the A.O. on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), it was submitted by the ld AR that in the present case of the Assessee, ITA 1121, 1189 & 1052/JP/2018_ 16 M/s Rajasthan Cable Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT Assessee has already discharged its prima facie onus to prove the cash credit by furnishing relevant documents substantiated identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Th…

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

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
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…

M/S Rajasthan Cable Industries Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1121/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dhakeswari (supra) is misconceived. 17. With regard to reliance placed by the A.O. on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), it was submitted by the ld AR that in the present case of the Assessee, ITA 1121, 1189 & 1052/JP/2018_ 16 M/s Rajasthan Cable Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT Assessee has already discharged its prima facie onus to prove the cash credit by furnishing relevant documents substantiated identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Th…

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

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
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…

M/S Rajasthan Cable Industries Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1052/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dhakeswari (supra) is misconceived. 17. With regard to reliance placed by the A.O. on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), it was submitted by the ld AR that in the present case of the Assessee, ITA 1121, 1189 & 1052/JP/2018_ 16 M/s Rajasthan Cable Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT Assessee has already discharged its prima facie onus to prove the cash credit by furnishing relevant documents substantiated identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Th…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In the instant case, as found by the AO subsequently, when notices u/s 133(6) were issued by him to the parties vide letter dated 22.11.2016 in the new address given by the assessee, the said…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In the instant case, as found by the AO subsequently, when notices u/s 133(6) were issued by him to the parties vide letter dated 22.11.2016 in the new address given by the assessee, the said…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) 1 vs. Nra Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Through Director

C.A. No.-002463-002463 - 2019Supreme Court05 Mar 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 148Section 68

…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. 3 [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 4 [1977] 107 ITR (SC) 17 The Delhi High Court in CIT 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 t…

Rajesh Bhatia, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1137/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 133Section 153ASection 68

…68. 7.9 Similarly, in the following cases, the Apex Court has held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an Assessee is on him. 1. Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) 2. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) 7.10 The peculiar facts of this case are different from the case of Sh. Sunil Kumar Bhatia for AY 2003-04. The Assessing Officer has diligently conducted the inquiry to verify the facts of the case and to look beyond the apparent. I do not agree with the contention of the Appellant that the parties could not be produced as the matter was old. O…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Jammu Metallic Oxides Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1208/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Jammu Metallic Oxides Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1191/JPR/2018[20111-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2019
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 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 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 found…

M/S. Jammu Metallic Oxides Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1055/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Oriental Power Cables Ltd., Kota

ITA 1211/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153Section 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Estate Private Limited., Kota

ITA 1209/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Estate Private Limited., Kota

ITA 1190/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Edila Business World Pvt. Ltd., Kota

ITA 1105/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Oriental Power Cables Ltd., Kota

ITA 1099/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 153Section 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Oriental Power Cables Ltd., Kota

ITA 1098/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 153Section 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Oriental Power Cables Ltd., Kota

ITA 1097/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 153Section 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 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 found…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Oriental Power Cables Ltd., Kota

ITA 1096/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 153Section 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 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 found…