Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

264 ITR 254High Court2003#227 most cited

What is Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT authority for?

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

340

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credit · onus of proof · burden of proof · identity of creditors · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditors · transaction by cheque · share application money · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

136 Taxmann 213

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 106creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceonus of proofshare capital and share premiumshell companyaddition under section 68addition u/s 68share application moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 127admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…e number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…e number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an…

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…e number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an…

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

…e number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an…

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal, Akola vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Akola

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

…estion of law as such could arise. Thus, it was held that The High Court was, therefore, right in refusing to refer the questions sought for.” 1.13. In another decision of Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nemi Chand Kothari reported at (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) it has been held that- “Under section 68 of Income Tax Act creditor‟s creditworthiness has to be judged vis-à-vis transactions, which have taken place between assessee and creditor, and it is not business of assessee to find out source of money of his creditor or genuineness of transactions, which took place between creditor and sub-cre…

Heritage Hospitals Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 4090/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee. v. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213/[2003] 264 ITR 254 held that merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the burden. The assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. : "It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Devine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…is ground of appeal, which are given below: "1.CIT Vs Stellar Investments reported in 192 ITR 287 (Delhi) DCIT Vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC) Metachem 245 ITR 360 (MPHC) Nem Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. I.T.A.C. LTD. (ITA 1194/2007) Rajokri Farms Pvt Ltd (ITA 1410/2008); Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331 Lab Chand Bohar vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 HC (Raj). Aravali Trading Co vs ITO 220 CTR 622 HC (Raj); Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. Micro Melt (P.) Ltd. 177 Taxman 35 HC (Guj)". 16.1.5 The Apex Court in the case of…

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee. v. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213/2003] 264 ITR 254 held that merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the burden. The assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. "It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of choque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his cr…

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…nd bank statements or ITR and confirmations only indicate and reflect proper paper work or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness and identity are deeper and obtrusive. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213/[2003] 264 ITR 254 held that merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the burden. The assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction.: "It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his c…

Dalas Biotech Limited, Bhiwadi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 147/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv (Physical)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…ed." Apart from the above mentioned judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, the appellant's case has been found covered by the following judgments: - i. CIT v/s. Meta Chem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) ii. Nemichand Kolhani v/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) iii. iSona Electric Co. v/s. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi) iv. Tam Tam Pedda Guruna Reddy v/s. JCIT 291 ITR 44 (Kar.) In the case of M/s. Capaxo Logistics Pvt Ltd. ‘’14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the assessee has received amount of loan and advances for Rs…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…s Page No. 1. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(Supreme Court of India) 1-5 2. CIT vs. Precision Fianance (P.) Ltd.[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Calcutta) High Court of 6-8 Calcutta/ 208 ITR 465 3. Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 [2003]264 ITR 254(High 9-17 Court of Gauhati) 4. CIT Vs. Korley Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (High Court of Calcutta) 18-19 5. Kamal Motors vs. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155(High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur 20-21 Bench) 6. CIT vs. R.S. Rathore[1996] 86 Taxman 20(High Court of Rajasthan)212 ITR 390 22-24 7. CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. [2011] 9 taxmann.c…

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…N or details of cheque and bank statements only indicate and reflect proper paper work or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness and identity are deeper and obtrusive. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213/[2003] 264 ITR 254 held that merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the burden. The assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction.: "It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his…

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

…: 367 ITR 217 (All.)  CIT v. Arunanada Textiles P. Ltd: 333 ITR 116 (Kar)  CIT v. Metachem Industries: 245 ITR 160 (MP)  DCIT v. Rohini Builders: 256 ITR 360 (Guj)  CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd.: 215 Taxman 157 (Guj.)(Mag.)  Nemichand Kothari V. CIT: 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati)  CIT v. Talbros Engineering Ltd.: 386 ITR 454 (P&H)  CIT v. Pranav Foundations Ltd.: T. C. (A.) NO. 262 OF 2014 (Mad.) 66. The ratio decidendi emanating from the aforesaid decisions may be summarized as under: (i) The assessee has to provide documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor as well as genuineness of…

Vishnu Kumar, Bharatpur vs. ACIT Or JCIT Or DCIT Or Asst. CIT Or ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bharatpur

ITA 85/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Act”), By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Has Been Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Was Before Learned Cit(A), Having Felt Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, (CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…for purchase of immovable property through banking channels is not acceptable in view of the following judgement. Transaction by cheques may not be sacrosanct- Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT[2003] 264 ITR 254 in which it is held that It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his creditors the genuineness of the transactions which he had with his creditors, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-à-vis the transaction which he had with the credi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…298 (Delhi) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, 103 ITR 344 (Patna) (x) DCIT v. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xi) Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO, 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (xii) ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd., 70 SOT 368 (xiii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (xiv) CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd., 237 Taxman 104 29. He submitted that when the assessee has proved the source of the investor companies by producing their PAN, letters of confirmation, bank statements, audited balance sheet, etc. and the assessee is not required to prove the source of source, therefore, in view of the abo…

Mr. Rajesh Madan, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 2747/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…td. 333 ITR 119 (Del.) observed that merely proving the identity of the investor does not discharge the onus of the taxable in the capacity or creditworthiness has not been established beyond doubt. This view was further held in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) wherein it was held that it cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his creditors the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-à-vis the transactions which he had with the creditors, his burden stands…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

…d. Apart from the above mentioned judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, the appellant's case has been found to be covered by the following judgments as well:- i) CIT V/s. Meta Chem Industries 245 ITR 160(MP) ii) Nemichand Kolhani v/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) iii) Sona Electirc Co V/s CIT 152 ITR 507(Delhi) iv) Tarn Tarn Pedda Guruna Reddy V/s JCIT 291 ITR 44 (Kar.) Finding:- On appraisal of these fresh evidences along with the submissions made by the appellant including the copy of the appellate order of the ClT(A)-5, Ahmedabad passed in the case of Shri Surendra M. Shah and binding judgm…

Ashwini Kumar Taneja, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(3), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ncement of money the source of source cannot be explore for which reliance was placed on judgment: • Tolaram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 59 ITR 632 (Assam) • CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.) • Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) • Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahmd.) • DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) • CIT vs. Rohini Builders 254 ITR 275 (Statute) • CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Ashwini Kumar Taneja 6 • GG Films vs. ITO 45 TTJ 644 (Cochin) and Anil Kumar Midha (HUF) vs. ITO 100 TTJ 644 (jodhpur) • Sarogi Credit Corp…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi vs. Artex Knitting Inds. P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 647/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 68

…o by providing reasonable & sufficient opportunity to the AO to carry out the investigation for verifying the creditworthiness of the parties, the source of funds and the genuineness of transaction. This view was further held in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) wherein it was held that it cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his creditors the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-à-vis the transactions which he had with the creditors, his burden stands…

ITO-13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

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

…CC 378, held that if the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee. v. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT, [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gau.), held that merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the burden. The assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. : “It cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity…