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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

M/S Umashakti Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1592/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Umashakti Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, D-288-289, 165, Wadhwa Complex, Circle 27(1), Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu7064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Sehgal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th January, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Production Of Steels (Ms Ingots). It Filed Its Return Of Income On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.70,18,180/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Has Taken Unsecured Loans Of Rs.5 Lakh Each From Two Parties, Namely, Kailash Agarwal & Bishwanath Agarwal. He Asked The Assessee To Furnish Documentary Evidence For Identity & Credit Worthiness Of The Parties & Genuineness Of The Transaction. The Assessee Furnished The Confirmation Of Accounts, Copies Of Itrs & Bank Statements

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69A

…d in bank but u/s 68 the onus lies on the assesses to prove the identity genuineness and creditworthiness. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC)/Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) “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 assesses, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no…