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

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

ITA 3040/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 68

…butted, that evidence can beused against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. The very words "anundisclosed source" show that the disclosure must come from the assessee and not from theDepartment”. ii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) "It is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to havebeen received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to showeither that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under theprovisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…C) (xiv) Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) (xv) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) 12 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. (xvi) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (xvii) Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.) (xviii) Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) Based on above observations and relying on the above case laws, the ld CIT(A) at page 70-71 of his order made concluding findings as below:- "In view of…

Surajgovind Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1186/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: him and explaining relevant entries in their books of accounts. Needless to say, none of the investors appeared before the Ld. AO in response to such summons. These factors prompted the Ld. AO to make the impugned addition which duly gave credit to amounts shown against two non-resident investors viz. Ms. Pushpa Patel and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Rajivbhai Patel.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…gh normal banking channels, etc. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from a legal perspective and some of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad 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 assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an i…

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 1, C-Scheme, Jaipur

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

ITA 538/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Tetuka, Adv., ARFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ubmitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness, then it is for the AO to conduct a further enquiry and call for more details before invoking Section 68 of the I.T. Act 1. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 124-128 E. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A, which was necessary for the disposal of the case, when there was justified and reasonable cause for not producing the same before AO 1. Anmol Colours India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [2009] 31 SOT 18 (Jaipur) (URO)] 129-132 2. CIT Vs. K. Ravindranathan Na…

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Rudramukhi Vintrade Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 136/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…f the accommodation entry provider was not considered necessary by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the judicial pronouncements in the cases mentioned below: i) CIT v. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (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) CIT Vs Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly concluded as under: “7.4 It is therefore obligatory on the part of the assessee that it explains the nature and source of credits in its books of accounts out of which the cash deposits were made in the bank acc…

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

…rce and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC)[08-02-1963] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "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 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…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Minto Park Estates Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned

ITAT/4/2025HC Calcutta01 Aug 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…e primary onus. (ii) The Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers, and ascertain whether 16 [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 17 [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) ITAT NO. 4 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 19 of 22 the transaction is genuine, or these are bogus entries of name- lenders. (iii) If the inquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful, or lack credit- worthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction woul…

Luminant Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 68

…cus classicus on the subject, viz. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kale viz. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kale viz. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. vs. CIT [1963] 49 Banerjee & Ors. vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. ITR 112 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. CIT [1977] 107 ITR…

Mohd. Naushad Ansari (Prop. Gulsan Sev Foods), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 620/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohd Naushad Ansari The Ito, Ward-5(3)(3) Prop: Gulsan Sev Foods Vs. Anandnagar Road 51, Pujara Ni Chali Ahmedabad. Nr.Sarangpur Bridge Kamdar Medan – Gomtipur Ahmedabad 380 021 Pan: Aiwpa 6480 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Addition Of Rs.28,54,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee During The Demonetisation Period. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. Facts Of The Case 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

…ed the assessee’s explanation, observing that the assessee failed to explain the sources of the said cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Relying on judicial precedents including Roshan D. Hathi v. CIT (107 ITR 938) and Kelekhan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1), the AO held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.28,54,000/- treating it as unexplained cash credit. The said amount was taxed under section 115BBE of the Act, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were separately initiated. 3 2.3 Aggrieved by the above addition, the asses…

Raj Nath Srivastava L/H Deepak Srivastava, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Range- 1(3), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…rce of cash deposits in bank account is found to be satisfactory. The learned CIT(A), in his impugned appellate order, has referred to orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) for the view that when 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 Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed earlier, the explanation furnished by the assessee…

Shyama Shree, Asansol vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Asansol

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

ITA 967/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…(Jharkhand), ii) PCIT Vs NRA Iron and Steel (P) Ltd (2019) 103 Taxmann 48 (SC), iii) CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 83 ITR 540 SC, iv) Roshan Di Hatti vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08-03-1977] and v) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and as the assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) treated a sum of ₹ 10,65,77,400/- as nothing but unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly, confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO and the appeal of t…

ACIT-3, Lucknow vs. Harshit Garg, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 451/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

…er, though assessee claimed that all his sales are fully vouchered, assessee had not furnished any vouchers of sales through sales invoices in the time period from 01/10/2016 till 08/11/2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1, had also clearly stated that 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. 3.) During assessment proceedings the assessee had not submitted any invoices of sales made through sales invoices. There was no way to ascertain the identity of…

Sahyog Construction, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Previously Circle-1(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: PER SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT. DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…see on rejection of its books of accounts whether any addition on account of unexplained credits can be made, has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1(SC). Posed with an identical issue on the question before it that where the ITO had assessed the income on percentage basis, whether he was justified in treating credits appearing in the books of the assessee as profits from an undisclosed source, the Hon’ble Court answered in the affirmative holding that there did not lie any other answer in such c…

Basharat Saleem Rehtoo, Srinagar vs. DCIT, ACIT Cent. Circle, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

…h proves that the cash intercepted is of the assessee’s business cash. I.T.A. No. 456/Asr/2024 8 Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 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 of a receipt, whether it be of money or other properly, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the asses…

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan vs. Shri Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Rander

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

…l.), CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (Orissa), CIT vs. Kishorilal & Santhoshilal, 216 ITR 9 (Raj.), A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807, CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd., 333 ITR 119 (Del.) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC). He held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on the assessee. When the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, the revenue can hold that it was income of the assessee. Further, merely providing the identity of the creditor ITA No.716/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 As…

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…t just establish the identity of the creditors but also their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Reliance is placed on the case lows in the succeeding paragraphs. General 5. The Apex Court has laid down in Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT, [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) that the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits. 6. In the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More, [1971] 82 ITR 540, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that Section 68 casts the burden of proof on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor, and the genuineness neness of…

Mahendra Kumar Verma, Indore vs. ITO-4(1), Indore

ITA 482/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri PankajFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69B

…nt's books of account and (iii) the AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the appellant are fulfilled in the instant case. Reliance is placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT reported in [1963] 50 ITR 1 held that "If an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount received during the accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature." Hence, considering the totality of the facts and discussions made above, the action of the AO in making addition o…

Sharad Shamrao Sawant, Sangli vs. Assestant Comissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2626/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar M. MaliFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…er section 14, then it would be classified as deemed income and shall be taxed as per the rates provided under section 115BBE of the Act. 12. It is also important to mention here that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of proof, the tax officer is enti…

Mohan Dagadu Chougale, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1312/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…hat the sum credited, is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC). 9 31. It is also a well settled legal position that in order to discharge his onus, the assessee must prove the identity of creditors, capacity of creditors to advance money and genuineness of transaction. Once the assessee has discharged his primary onus by submitting supporting documents for above three ingredients, then only burden shifts…

Ms. Allied Trade Links, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-2, Guwahati

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained, and the business income estimated by him under section 13 after rejecting the books of account of the assessee as unreliable. This was so decided in Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). Whether in a given case the ITO may tax the cash credit entered in the books of account of the business, and at the same time estimate the profit must however, depend upon the facts of each case. In the case of Shree Sanand Textile Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.995/Ahd/2014 with CO No.167/Ahd/2014& ITA No.1166/Ahd/2014 the issue relating to…