Namdev Arora v. CIT

72 Taxmann.com 124High Court2016#5371 most cited

What is Namdev Arora v. CIT authority for?

An addition under section 69A is justified when an assessee fails to discharge the burden of proving the source of funds, even if the Assessing Officer initially mentioned section 68.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Namdev Arora v. CIT · Section 69A · Section 68 · unexplained cash deposits · burden of proof · source of funds · addition justified

Also reported as

389 ITR 434

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 154Section 68Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysection 113section 124(3)section 131(1a)section 124survey under section 133asection 271baddition u/s 68section 40asection 292section 69bsection 292b

Judgments citing Namdev Arora v. CIT

Sh. Vikrant Kanshal, Bathinda vs. The Icnomet-Ax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ts respect. The assessee admittedly owning the amounts under reference, it is immaterial whether the assessee’s explanation would qualify as one u/s. 68 or u/s. 69A. This in fact is precisely what the Hon'ble High Court clarifies in Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H), reference to which was made by the Bench during hearing. In the facts of that case an addition made and sustained u/s. 69A, was confirmed by the tribunal u/s. 68. On the assessee raising the issue of legality of such an action by the tribunal, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dismissed the appeal, holding as follows: ‘Held, dismissing…

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT 24.05.2013 3,00,000/- 07.08.2013 40,000/- 14.08.2013 2,00,000/- The assessee had clearly failed to prove the genuineness of the credit. Accordingly, relying on the decisions in Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) (in ITA No. 159 of 2016, dated 20.07.2016); Kamal Motors v. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155 (Raj); and C. Kant and Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (Cal), the said credits were added u/s. 68, and confirmed in appeal for the same reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR would rely on an affidavit (dated 23.08.201…