Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT

74 ITD 25Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#8534 most cited

What is Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT authority for?

Where seized documents indicate unaccounted transactions, the Assessing Officer can estimate undisclosed income. The onus is on the assessee to prove that the apparent state of affairs is not the real state of affairs.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao · section 132 · undisclosed income · estimation of income · seized documents · unaccounted transactions · onus of proof · apparent is real

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4)section 153csection 115incriminating materialundisclosed incomesection 139search and seizuresection 153section 153asection 132section 11section 143(2)

Judgments citing Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT

Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle

ITA 468/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 153CSection 153D

…sk the adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC). It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM)/[2000] 69 TTJ 135 (Pune) (TM) [27-01-2000] as under 134. Having held that the seized record is not the complete record of unaccounted transactions, the question which arises is whether these facts justify the estimation of undisclosed income. It is well settled law that what is apparent is the real state of affairs and the onus to p…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…and ask the adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC). It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of KhopadeKisanraoManikrao v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM)/[2000] 69 TTJ 135 (Pune) (TM) [27-01-2000] as under- 134. Having held that the seized record is not the complete record of unaccounted transactions, the question which arises is whether these facts justify the estimation of undisclosed income. It is well settled law that what is apparent is the real state of affairs and the onus to prov…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Narendra Sampatlal Bafna, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 688/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…hta, the addition was rightly made by the Assessing Officer, has been held by CIT(A). He has referred to various decisions in support of the addition made. Firstly, he has relied upon the decision of ITAT Third Member in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao [74 ITD 25]. In this regard, the stand of assessee is that the decision in the case before Third Member was not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the assessee was searched and documents were found indicating on money received on sale of plots. On the basis of the documents found, the Assessing Officer estimated the income from on…

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.Sivasankar, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 953/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…osed income of the assessee on the basis of loose slips seized during the course of search, which indicate suppression of sales. The Ld.DR, further, referring to the Third Member decision in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT, reported in [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM), argued that in the block period, there is a scope for estimation of income provided therein, enough materials in the possession of the Department on undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, during the course of search, an agreement between the assessee and Mr.M.A.Salim was found and as per the said agreement, the assessee ag…

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.Sivasankar, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 952/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…osed income of the assessee on the basis of loose slips seized during the course of search, which indicate suppression of sales. The Ld.DR, further, referring to the Third Member decision in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT, reported in [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM), argued that in the block period, there is a scope for estimation of income provided therein, enough materials in the possession of the Department on undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, during the course of search, an agreement between the assessee and Mr.M.A.Salim was found and as per the said agreement, the assessee ag…

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.Sivasankar, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 951/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…osed income of the assessee on the basis of loose slips seized during the course of search, which indicate suppression of sales. The Ld.DR, further, referring to the Third Member decision in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT, reported in [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM), argued that in the block period, there is a scope for estimation of income provided therein, enough materials in the possession of the Department on undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, during the course of search, an agreement between the assessee and Mr.M.A.Salim was found and as per the said agreement, the assessee ag…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 620/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…osed income of the assessee on the basis of loose slips seized during the course of search, which indicate suppression of sales. The Ld.DR, further, referring to the Third Member decision in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT, reported in [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM), argued that in the block period, there is a scope for estimation of income provided therein, enough materials in the possession of the Department on undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, during the course of search, an agreement between the assessee and Mr.M.A.Salim was found and as per the said agreement, the assessee ag…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 619/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…osed income of the assessee on the basis of loose slips seized during the course of search, which indicate suppression of sales. The Ld.DR, further, referring to the Third Member decision in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT, reported in [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM), argued that in the block period, there is a scope for estimation of income provided therein, enough materials in the possession of the Department on undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, during the course of search, an agreement between the assessee and Mr.M.A.Salim was found and as per the said agreement, the assessee ag…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 618/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…osed income of the assessee on the basis of loose slips seized during the course of search, which indicate suppression of sales. The Ld.DR, further, referring to the Third Member decision in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT, reported in [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM), argued that in the block period, there is a scope for estimation of income provided therein, enough materials in the possession of the Department on undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, during the course of search, an agreement between the assessee and Mr.M.A.Salim was found and as per the said agreement, the assessee ag…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 617/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…osed income of the assessee on the basis of loose slips seized during the course of search, which indicate suppression of sales. The Ld.DR, further, referring to the Third Member decision in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT, reported in [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM), argued that in the block period, there is a scope for estimation of income provided therein, enough materials in the possession of the Department on undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, during the course of search, an agreement between the assessee and Mr.M.A.Salim was found and as per the said agreement, the assessee ag…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ce by the assessee or its directors that such practice was followed in the earlier years as well. Accordingly, the ratio of Rajnik & Co. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We further find in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. Asst. CIT [74 ITD 25 (Pune)(TM)], wherein the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the said decision of ITAT, Third Member of Pune Bench. In the said case, the evidence was found that the assessee had taken on-money on sale of plots. The evidence was found for all the years falling within the block period. Thus the issue arose that on the basis of eviden…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ce by the assessee or its directors that such practice was followed in the earlier years as well. Accordingly, the ratio of Rajnik & Co. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We further find in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. Asst. CIT [74 ITD 25 (Pune)(TM)], wherein the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the said decision of ITAT, Third Member of Pune Bench. In the said case, the evidence was found that the assessee had taken on-money on sale of plots. The evidence was found for all the years falling within the block period. Thus the issue arose that on the basis of eviden…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ce by the assessee or its directors that such practice was followed in the earlier years as well. Accordingly, the ratio of Rajnik & Co. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We further find in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. Asst. CIT [74 ITD 25 (Pune)(TM)], wherein the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the said decision of ITAT, Third Member of Pune Bench. In the said case, the evidence was found that the assessee had taken on-money on sale of plots. The evidence was found for all the years falling within the block period. Thus the issue arose that on the basis of eviden…

Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. ACIT (74 ITD 25) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax