Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT

72 ITR 757High Court1969#4539 most cited

What is Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT authority for?

Where an assessee encashes high denomination currency notes after a demonetisation ordinance and provides an explanation for their source, the assessing officer must disbelieve the explanation with material evidence before treating the amount as income from an undisclosed source.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT · 72 ITR 757 · High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance · 1946 · undisclosed income · source of cash · demonetisation period · explanation of source

Judgments citing Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT

Raghupathy Srivatsa Ravikumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward -1 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 991/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raghupathy Srivatsa Income Tax Officer, Ravikumar, V. Non Corporate Ward 1(3), C/O. J. Prabhakar, Chennai. Chartered Accountant, No. 245, Residency Apartments, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aizpr-6860-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. J. Prabhakar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 50Section 55

…ssessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected arguments of the assessee and made additions u/s. 69 of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.S. Kannan Kunhi vs CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757 :-7-: ITA. No:991/Chny/2022 (Ker). The assessee had also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co vs CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) and also relied upon the decision of ITAT Chennai Benches in the case of Umamaheswari vs ITO in ITA No. 527/Chny/2022. 7. The ld. DR, Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT, supporting the order of t…

Ramesh Chand Investment & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

ITA 6009/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence. The High Court misdirected itself and erred in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); [1995] Supp 2 SCC 453 relied on. K. S. Kannan Kunhi v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757 (Ker) considered. Decision of the Madras High Court in A. Rajendran v. Asst. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 178 reversed.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. NovaPromoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 0169- has distinguished the case of CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 119 (Delhi) and has held as…

Madhuri Das Narain Das v. CIT (72 ITR 757) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax