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 366,470 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

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

In the result we uphold the order of learned CIT-A, hence these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1859/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1859 To 1864/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Mr. Shivanand Komal Singh, Dcit, Central Circle-6 Room No.123-979, बनाम/ Mumbai Motilal Nagar No.1, Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400104 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Avfps0644A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B.N. Rao-Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin-Dr

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Rao-ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-DR
Section 131Section 153C

…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 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 has not discharged its…

Asst CIT Palghar Cir Palghar, Palghar vs. Rajendrasingh Rathore, Palghar

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 909/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 909/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asst. Cit, Shri Rajendrasingh Rathore Palghar Circle, Palghar, Prop. Of M/S. Rajendra Enterprises बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Ito, Bidco Road, &, M/S. Rajshree Transport Palghar, Dist. Palghar-401 404 Company, 807, Naminath, B-Wing, Vs. Ostwal Empire, Boisar Taluka, Palghar-401 404 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ahdpr 0416 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 10.11.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Thane Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,78,72,848/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits.

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: None

…n his view that the same is a business activity of the assessee and it should be accepted that it has resulted in a profit equivalent to 23% of the receipt. Furthermore, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) that when a person claims a particular receipt is not to be subject to tax, the onus is upon him to prove the same. Hence, in our considered opinion, the onus is squarely upon the assessee to prove the receipts deposited in that undisclosed bank account are the proceeds of the genuine business and the profit thereof is only 23%. Since the ass…

Mathura Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7096/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra,D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 68

…which according to the AO is cash received by the assessee but AO has not rebutted the explanation of the assessee offered during the course of assessment proceedings. The case law relied upon by the revenue in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT 1963 50 ITR 1 is not applicable and is distinguishable on facts. Considering the above facts in totality and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, High Courts and other judicial forums, we are of the considered view that the addition on the basis of dumb document is wrong and accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the ad…

Gudla Sriranganadham, Srikakulam vs. The ITO, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 92/VIZ/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.92/Viz/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12) Sri Gudla Sriranganadham Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop : Sri Krishna Wines Ward-1 D.No.15-24, A.B.Road, Kotturu Srikakulam Srikakulam District [Pan : Ajhpg3664J] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Bangari, DRFor Respondent: 28.02.2018
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145

…ri Kistaiah (120 ITR 294) and of the Apex Court in the case of Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad 72 ITR 194. The 7 Gudla Sriranganadham, Srikakulam Hon'ble Tribunal also referred to the observation of Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1 SC), "It cannot be said that the tax authorities were precluded from treating the amounts of the credit entries as income from undisclosed sources simply because the entries appear in the books of a business whose income they had previously computed on a percentage basis" while rendering the above decision. Therefore, the ground raised in this regar…

Suresh Komal Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 5281/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhsuresh Komal Singh Dcit Central Circle 6 Mumbai. Room No. 123-979, Motilal Vs. Nagar No.1, Goregaon West, Mumbai-400104 Pan:Apmps5397D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.N. Roa (Ar) Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Roa (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 253Section 254(1)

…n, there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT-A. Once it is undisputed that amount has been received by the assessee, it is for the assessee to prove that the amount received is not taxable as his income. In the case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1, Hon’ble Apex Court has expounded 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 it is exempt. In the present case, assessee has not disputed this ITA No. 5281/Mu…

Subramanian Rajan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 6, Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2418/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2418/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Acit, Shri Subramanian Rajan, Non Corporate Circle 6, New No.26/1, Old No.22/1, Chennai. Deivasigamani Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. Pan: Acfpr4402A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant By ""यथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…e PAN numbers of the above mentioned persons. However rejecting the submission of the assessee and by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT reported in 107 ITR 938 and Kalekhan Mohameed Harif Vs. CIT reported in 50 ITR 1, the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.1,53,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO by agreeing with his view and also by relying in the following decisions 6.41. In [2015] 60 taxmann.com 37 (Patna - Trib.) Prabhat Construction Company vs Commissione…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ambarwadikar & Company, Aurangabad

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

ITA 2039/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142

…IT(A), Aurangabad, erred in holding that no separate addition can be made u/s.69C of the Act once the profits are estimated. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions : a. CIT Vs. K.M.N. Naidu 221 ITR 451 b. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 c. Devinder Singh Vs. ACIT 101 TTJ 505 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and Law and without prejudice to Ground No.1 in the original Grounds of Appeal, the Ld.CIT(A), Aurangabad erred in estimating the profits for A.Y. 2010-11 at 13% by comparing other cases ignoring the fact that profit @24% was declared by the assessee itself for the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ambarwadikar & Company, Aurangabad

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

ITA 2038/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142

…IT(A), Aurangabad, erred in holding that no separate addition can be made u/s.69C of the Act once the profits are estimated. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions : a. CIT Vs. K.M.N. Naidu 221 ITR 451 b. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 c. Devinder Singh Vs. ACIT 101 TTJ 505 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and Law and without prejudice to Ground No.1 in the original Grounds of Appeal, the Ld.CIT(A), Aurangabad erred in estimating the profits for A.Y. 2010-11 at 13% by comparing other cases ignoring the fact that profit @24% was declared by the assessee itself for the…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. Sai Bhaskar Irons Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/VIZ/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Deba K.Sonowala, DRFor Respondent: Shri I Kama Sastry, AR
Section 14Section 68

…om other sources". Else such addition is not taxable at all. Once it is treated as part of gross total income then unabsorbed depreciation is to be allowed as set off of such income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of KalekhanMohd. HanifVs. CIT 50 ITR 1 held that "the expression 'nature and source' has to be understood as a requirement of identification of the source and its genuineness. 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." The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chensing Ventures 212 CTR…

Gn Resound India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gn Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office No. 1201, 1202, 1203, Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. 12Th Floor, V. Times Square, Mumbai. Plot No. 3, Sector 15, Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccg3984C Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

…ed to adduce the evidence before the AO to establish the prima facie of the aforesaid transaction as evident from the finding at para 8 hereinbefore. It has been held in Govindarajulu v. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC); Lakhmichand v. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC); Kalekhan v. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) that where an assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an income nature and it is not necessary for him to locate their exact source. As in the instant case, the appellant fail…

ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Spartacus Farmsp.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3073/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3073/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The I.T.O-8(3)(2), M/S. Spartacus Farms Pvt. Ltd. 201, Aayakar Bhavan, 11-A, Gr. Floor, बनाम/ M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6632 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Ms. Trupti Y. Katale सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar &
Section 68

…discharged of its burden to prove the capacity of the share applicant to advance such huge funds. The Assessing Officer further referred to several case laws as under: 1. CIT vs. P. Mohankala (2007) 161 Taxman 169 (SC) 2. Mr. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) 3. M/s. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 4. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 49 ITR 723 6 M/s. Spartacus Farms Pvt. Ltd. 5. R. B. Mittal vs. CIT 165 CTR 366 6. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. order dated 15.2.2012 7. Ld. Departmental Representative. D. Siva Sankara Rao vs. ITO dated 27.11.2012 6. The Assessing Officer concluded as under:…

Ankit Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3395/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3395/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ankit Gupta Ito, Wd. 30(1)(1), बनाम/ 201/1, Raheja Tipco Height, C-13, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E), Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 097 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Anopg 5238 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. C. Jain , Shri Ajay Daga & Shri Navneet Lahoti ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 11.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 20.02.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.5 Lacs Out Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.1853000/-.

For Appellant: Shri R. C. Jain , Shri Ajay Daga &For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 2(22)(e)

…sh is deposited and immediately cheque is issued to M/s. Gigal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. which is a family concern. The Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Roshan di Hatti vs. CIT (107 ITR 938) (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) (SC) relevant to the facts of the case. 4. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) asked the Assessing Officer to file the remand report on the fresh submission of the assessee. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not find the Assessing Officer’s remand report justified. He inter alia accepted that t…

Harsh Saluja, Mathura vs. ITO 3(2), Mathura

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 165/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 251(2)Section 44ASection 68

…ing documents to show that they are genuine business transactions, the same would not be treated as explained income in the hands of the assessee as has been laid down in CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), Kale khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 etc.” 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs.12,97,291/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, representing the deposits as unexplained. The argument is that the bank passbook is not a book of I.T.A No. 165/Agra/2016 7 account of the assessee and, therefore, no addition u/s 68 of the Act can b…

Paras Sunderji Dedhia, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6782/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Sailesh Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…d to cash credit, the assessee must prove the following: (i) the identity of the creditor, (ii) the capacity of the creditor to advance money; and (iii) the genuineness of transaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) that the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether that stand in the assessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In view of the above position of law, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to re-examine in the light of our observation hereinbefore…

Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

…ed with the transactions in respect of which the net profit has been estimated by the AO. In support, useful reference can be drawn to the legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT reported in 50 ITR 1 and which has been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in case of CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwanath reported in 72 ITR 194 wherein it was held as under: Sh. Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota “ there is nothing in law which prevents the ITO in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of whi…

M/S. Anila Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3415/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142Section 144ASection 245(4)Section 251Section 292CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3415/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/s. Anila Industries Limited, Vs DCIT (HQ), 308, Aruncahal Building, Central Circle III, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECA0390A Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 01.02.2017 of ld. CIT (A)-XXXIII, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds h…

M/S. Ganesh Kumar & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1708/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…iled to discharge the onus cast on him. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the A.O and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case: i. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 [SC] ii CIT Vs. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 [SC] iii. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd Vs. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 202 [Del] iv. Bhartesh Jain Vs. DCIT [Del] 483 CTR Vol 201 dated 7.4.2006 v. CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 15. So far as the arguments of the ld. AR that the A.O has not disposed of the objections raised on reopening of the assessment is con…

Azizur Faizur Rahman, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2791/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…Vashi and Khadk, Mumbai as a labourer and was earning Rs. 9,000/- p.m. It is inconceivable that with such meagre income Mr. Dattu could give a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to the assessee. 8. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC), the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the assessee’s account or in the account of a third party. At para 7 here-in-above, we have delineated that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the…

ITO, Pudukkottai vs. A.Anbukkannan, Pudukkottai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1871/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1731/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Shri. A. Anbukkannan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.744, Periyar Nagar, Ward I(1) Rajagopalapuram, Purukottai. Pudukottai 622 003. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1871/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. A. Anbukkannan, Ward I(1) No.744, Periyar Nagar, Purukottai Rajagopalapuram, Pudukottai 622 003. [Pan Agppa 7635N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri.S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 131(1)

…ished by the assessee could not be believed. He held that assessee was unable to produce satisfactory evidence for the debit and credit entries in the bank account. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT 107 ITR 938, ld. Assessing Officer held that onus was on the assessee to prove source for the money claimed to have been received by him. Further, as per ld. Assessing Officer claim of the assessee that withdrawals from the bank were recycled was never substantiated with evidence. He treated the entire cash deposits of…

A.Anbukkannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Pudukkottai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1731/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1731/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Shri. A. Anbukkannan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.744, Periyar Nagar, Ward I(1) Rajagopalapuram, Purukottai. Pudukottai 622 003. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1871/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. A. Anbukkannan, Ward I(1) No.744, Periyar Nagar, Purukottai Rajagopalapuram, Pudukottai 622 003. [Pan Agppa 7635N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri.S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 131(1)

…ished by the assessee could not be believed. He held that assessee was unable to produce satisfactory evidence for the debit and credit entries in the bank account. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT 107 ITR 938, ld. Assessing Officer held that onus was on the assessee to prove source for the money claimed to have been received by him. Further, as per ld. Assessing Officer claim of the assessee that withdrawals from the bank were recycled was never substantiated with evidence. He treated the entire cash deposits of…