Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT

234 ITR 571High Court1998#4318 most cited

What is Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT authority for?

Once an assessee successfully proves the source of money, they cannot be compelled to provide proof of how that money was acquired in specific denominations of currency notes.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT · section 68 · proof of source of money · proof of acquisition of currency notes · Bombay High Court · 1998

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 68Section 69ASection 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 69Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

period of holdingsection 148(2)section 34live linksection 254(1)borrowed satisfactionsection 115bbsection 115bbeaddition under section 68section 115bprincipal commissioner of income-taxincome-tax officer

Judgments citing Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT

ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2022[ABUPK2500L]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…otes also and that those notes or any part of them represented income of assessee from some undisclosed sources – Held, yes 16) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Narendra G Goradia vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1998] 101 Taxman 571 (Bombay)/[1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay)/[1999] 154 CTR 365 (Bombay) Case Law paper Book page 232-237 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1979-80 - In relevant period assessee had tendered notes of Rs. 1000 denomination valuing Rs. 2 lakhs for encashment - There was no dispute about source of money nor about fact that there was sufficient b…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 68

…otes also and that those notes or any part of them represented income of assessee from some undisclosed sources – Held, yes 16) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Narendra G Goradia vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1998] 101 Taxman 571 (Bombay)/[1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay)/[1999] 154 CTR 365 (Bombay) Case Law paper Book page 232-237 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1979-80 - In relevant period assessee had tendered notes of Rs. 1000 denomination valuing Rs. 2 lakhs for encashment - There was no dispute about source of money nor about fact that there was sufficient b…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…notes also and that those notes or any part of them represented income of assessee from some undisclosed sources – Held, yes 17) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Narendra G Goradiavs Commissioner of Income Tax [1998] 101 Taxman 571 (Bombay)/[1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay)/[1999] 154 CTR 365 (Bombay)(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 232-237) Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1979-80 - In relevant period assessee had tendered notes of Rs. 1000 denomination valuing Rs. 2 lakhs for encashment - There was no dispute about source of money nor about fact that there was sufficie…

DCIT, Circle-2, Trichy vs. M/S. Mc Hospital, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the Cross

ITA 11/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. M. C. Hospital Income-Tax, Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Circle-2, Trichy. Street, Velipalayam, O/O The Joint Nagapattinam, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tamil Nadu-611001. Tax, Range-2, No. 100, (Pan: Aapfm2058R) Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 6/Chny/2022 In Ita No.11/Chny/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M. C. Hospital Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Income-Tax, Street, Velipalayam, Circle-2, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Vs. O/O The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu-611001. Of Income Tax, Range-2, No. (Pan: Aapfm2058R) 100, Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Revenue/Appellant By : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, Jcit Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No.535/2019-20/Cit(A0-1/Try Dated 23.09.2020 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Trichy U/S. 143(3) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…essee. Thus, once availability of cash in hand is proved, assessee cannot be asked to furnish proof of acquisition of such amount in currency notes of particular denomination. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Narendra G. Goradia (HUF) v. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bom) observed and held as under: “It appears from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal itself was conscious of the fact that once the cash balance on the crucial date was sufficient to cover the value of high denomination notes tendered by the assessee for encashment on demonetisation, no further enquiry was required about the source of…

DCIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Anuya Jayant Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1517/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit -26(1) V. Anuya Jayant Mhaiskar Room No. 623, 6Th Floor 410 Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Kautilya Bhavan Chandivali Village, Andheri (E) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400072 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Ajdpm3145L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kothari Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KothariFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(2)

…sh in hand becomes very relevant, when the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) reproduced in the decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Narendra G Goradia v. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 is considered. The relevant findings are as under: (Page 107 of Assessee's Paperbook) "....In cases of high denomination notes, where the business and the state of accounts and dealings of the assessee justify a reasonable inference that he might have for convenience kept the whole or part of a particular sum in high denomination notes, the asses…

Shri Ravinder Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO-Ward-3, Ambala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 170/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 250(6)

…hed the necessary details. As far as the plea of the learned DR that bulky information was filed by the assessee itself cannot be the basis of addition and for this proposition, we are fortified by the decision in the case of Narndra G. Goradia (HUF) Vs. CIT (234 ITR 571) (Bom). In the absence of any specific defect or rejection of books of account, the information/books of account filed by the assessee simply cannot be brushed aside. The additions seem to be on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and surmises, therefore, such additions cannot be sustained Our view is fortified by the decision from the Hon'ble Ape…

Kishan Mehta, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainkishan Mehta, Vs A.C.I.T., D-19-20, Shiv Park Circle-1, Colony, Durga Nursery Udaipur. Road, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acipm 6039 R

Section 143(3)

…Income Tax, 37 ITR 288 (SC) – ... that burden to prove the source ... was on the assessee and such onus had been discharged by her by producing of relevant record'. .. (d) CIT vs. Daya Chand Jain Vaidhya 98 ITR 280 (All.); Narndra G. Goradia (HUF) Vs. CIT (234 ITR 571) (Bom); decision in the case of Sumiti Dayal conclusion that . . . . The revenue had failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the explanation of the assessee was incorrect. comment: Merely asking for identity of the person after passing of more than ten years without considering the facts of actual work and improvement at the site.…