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

Nitaben Girishbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

ITA 1560/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

…stment. No contract notes or satisfactory evidence were produced even during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (107 ITR 938) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) to hold that the burden lies upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the investment. In the absence of such explanation, the addition made by the AO under section 69A was confirmed. The appeal of the assessee was thus dismissed. 2.9 The assessee, being further aggrieved, is now in appeal before us raising following grounds: 1. The L…

Pradeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT-Central Circle-2, Jaipur

25. As a result, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 937/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), While Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019, Passed By The Assessing Officer, As Regards Assessment Year 2017-18. That Appeal Came To Be Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…decisions:- 8 Pradeep Jain, Jaipur  M. Ganapathi Mudaliar, (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC).  A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC).  Roshan di Hatti v Commissioner of Income-tax, (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC)  Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT, (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). 16. Hence, the appellant is before this Appellate Tribunal. Contentions 17. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that from the seized material it can safely be inferred that the transactions recorded on Exhibit 12 were actually not transactions of cash loans and advances by the assessee, and rather, said entries were recorded by the assess…

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

…a credit entry appears by the assessee’s books of accounts in an accounting year, the assessee has a legal Obligation to explain the nature and source of such credit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in his later judgement in case of Seth Kalekhan Md, Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 has held If the assessee offers an explanation about the “edit, the income-tax department can put the assessee to proof of his explanation, (if the assessee fails to tender evidence or burkes an enquiry, then the Assessing Officer justified in rejecting the explanation and holding that the income is from an undisclosed. Ingredients of the assessee’s…

Radheshyam, Village Sevda, Ashta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 666/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 251Section 253Section 68

…ound to be credited in the books of the appellant u/s 68 of the Act. As held in the assessment order, the appellant has furnished any explanation is. 6.2. 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) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stipulated that the onus of providing 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 of other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income…

Purva, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1220/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…rden of proving the nature and source of cash deposits is upon the assessee. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of 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). At the same time, it is equally settled that Section 69A uses the expression "may be deemed to be income", thereby conferring a discretion on the AO, which has to be exercised judiciously. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). Thus, the authoritie…

Suman Lata, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Noida

In the result, the case remanded back to CIT(A)

ITA 4919/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Yr: 2012-13

Section 68

…Even prior to the insertion of the said section or its predecessor, there were ample authorities to the same effect as section 68. In this regard, one may profitably refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT -[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the Court has held as under: "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.…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…asked for by the bench and what exactly, was asked for and required never delivered to the bench. This act of intentional omission confirms the finding of the AO that the assessee has not anything to say over the strength of the facts of the case. 12. [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…asked for by the bench and what exactly, was asked for and required never delivered to the bench. This act of intentional omission confirms the finding of the AO that the assessee has not anything to say over the strength of the facts of the case. 12. [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…asked for by the bench and what exactly, was asked for and required never delivered to the bench. This act of intentional omission confirms the finding of the AO that the assessee has not anything to say over the strength of the facts of the case. 12. [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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…

Sunilkumar Ichhubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 52/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

…nt order and observed that there is no material on record to warrant interference in the order of AO. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs. CITʼ [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). 7. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted the paper book containing various details and relied on various decisions in favour of assessee's concerned. The L:d. AR assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before Ld…

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

…mited time after announcement of demonetization. The Assessing Officer, in disbelieving the assessee's explanation, and in making the aforesaid addition, placed reliance on the cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and Others vs. CIT, Bihar & Orissa 1964 AIR 697 for the proposition that the onus was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of money found to have been received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer placed further reliance on the orders of Hon'ble Suprem…

Anandmangal Investment and Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4166/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.4166/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Anandmangal Investment & vs Income-tax Officer, W-12(1)(1), Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 129, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 201, Hemlok Apartment, 87, Kilachand Path, Kandivali, Mumbai Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AAACA5241L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR) Date of hearing : 15/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 18/09/2025 O R D E R…

Mohammed Shoeb Aziz Haque Khan, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-5, Vapi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 952/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.952/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Mohammad Shoeb Aziz Haque Khan, Vs. Ito, B-22, Behind Amba Mata Temple, Ward – 5, Koparli Road, Gunjan, Vapi - 396195 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adtpk8300R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

…ders and genuineness of the transactions. Since assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him to prove the cash credit found in his books of account, therefore, AO, relying upon the decisions given in the case of ‘Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Hi Hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) and CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 (Del.), treated the unsecured loans of Rs.3,39,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 ITA No.952/SRT/2024/AY 2011-12 Mohammad Shoeb Aziz Haque Khan of the Act. As per the bank statement, the assessee had received interest on savings ban…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Disha Dynamic Buildwell Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

ITA 3805/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Acit, Circle – 4(2)(1), Mumbai Disha Dynamic Buildwell Private Limited Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Vs 101, Janet Castle, Marve Road, Opp. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Joseph High School, Orlem Malad West, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400064. Mumbai – 400020.] [Pan: Aadcd9697E] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 68

…see failed to discharge primary onus. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the entire addition made by assessing officer. To support his submission, ld. Sr. DR also relied upon the decision in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC). 6 Disha Dynamic Buildwell Private Limited 6. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee submits that during his assessment, the assessee furnished complete details of all the lenders. The assessee furnished confirmation of lenders their PAN number, return of income and bank statement. The ld. CIT(A) in para 4.4 of his order has clearly accep…

K N Dileep, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

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

ITA 1346/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Vijay Simha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

…AC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of total non-compliance on the part of the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kale khan Mohammed Hanif V. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) concluded that the assessee had not discharged the statutory onus cast upon him and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. K.N. Dileep, Bangalore Page 9 of 11 8. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 31.8.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 9. Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehementl…

Pavan Kumar Bhagat, Saharsa vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Sahara

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

ITA 281/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 69A

…- added u/s 69A of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) went I.T.A. No.: 281/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pavan Kumar Bhagat. through judicial pronouncements in the cases of i. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC), ii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), iii Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC), iv. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC), v. CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC). The assessee had stated that he had e-filed his return declaring total income of ₹7,54,620/-. He also held that the return filed on 24.05.2018 could not be considered as the return filed in re…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

ITA 602/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…in the case of "PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd." (supra) is concerned, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the "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 16 | P a g e ITA No.602/Del/2025 & C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and cred…

Amraram Gomaji Chowdhary, Navelim vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Margao

ITA 117/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 117/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Amraram Gomaji Chowdhary 457/C, Aquem Baixo, Firgulem, Navelim, Goa-403707. Pan : Aqjpc0124C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-(1), Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pradeep Kulkarni [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Manju Thakur [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074431239(1) Dt. 12/03/2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Pradeep Kulkarni [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Manju Thakur [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 69A

…eedings to deadlight the former findings. In our view the burden of proof casted upon the appellant to prove nature & source of initial cash deposit has been satisfactorily discharged, therefore placing reliance on ‘Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT’ [1963, 50 ITR 1(SC)] we vacate the balance addition sustained in first appeal. The substantive grounds thus stand allowed accordingly. 8. The appeal of the assessee in result stands ALLOWED. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before. -S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL…

Mr. Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Panaji

ITA 69/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 069/Pan/2025 & Sa 06/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas H. No. 373, Galliwaddo, Taleigao, Caranzalem, Goa-403002. Pan : Akapv9049C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073026397(1) Dt. 07/02/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Ahmedabad [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 5ASection 69A

…). In our view the burden of proof casted upon the appellant to prove nature & source of cash deposits palpably remained undischarged as a result the appellant failed to make out his case. Therefore placing reliance on ‘Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT’ [1963, 50 ITR 1(SC)] we upheld the actions of tax authorities in holding the entire cash deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The first ground thus stands dismissed. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 11 Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas Vs ITO ITA Nos.069/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 7. Next comes to applicability of provisions of section 5A of the Act. In the instant case,…

Neha Diwan, Hindmotor vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 630/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ly recorded and explained. It is also mention in the return of income filed u/s 148 of the Act. Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. 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 to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee a…