Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

57 ITR 532Supreme Court of India1965#710 most cited

What is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT authority for?

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT · 57 ITR 532 · not all receipts income · income chargeable to tax · AO cannot reject explanation arbitrarily · probabilities and possibilities · disbelieved not disproved · burden of proof on AO · Section 5 · Section 68 · Section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 5(2)Section 9Section 147Section 6Section 143(3)Section 5Section 68Section 149(1)(c)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 5(2)business connectionsection 149(1)creditworthiness of the creditorliable to taxtangible materialsection 34borrowed satisfactionsatisfaction noteassessee in default

Judgments citing Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

DCIT Circle-1 vs. Rana Papers Ltd

ITA 2184/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

…t the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Accommodation entries of Rs. 18,54,625/-, even when 11 months time was given by Assessing Officer for furnishing the evidences. The Hon’ble S.C. has held in 57 ITR 532, 53 ITR 623 that burden to prove nature and source of receipt was on the assessee, which has not been discharged by the assessee in this case. Page 1 of 63 ITA No.- 2184/Del/2008 M/s Rana Papers Ltd. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law by deleting the share capital of Rs. 4,28,50,000/- , and addition made u/s 68…

DCIT Cen Cir-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jac Air Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7045/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7042/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shir Sushilkumar Poddar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

…ents of such documents shall be presumed to be true? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Parimistti Seetharamamma vs. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC), wherein the facts of the case is not identical to that of the instant case?” 4 | P a g e ITA Nso.7042 - 7045MUM/2017 3. Brief facts are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was initiated in the case of Lalit Jobanputra Group by the investigation Wing of Mumbai, Income Tax Department on 19.08.2011 after receipt of in…

DCIT Cen Cir-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jac Air Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7044/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7042/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shir Sushilkumar Poddar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

…ents of such documents shall be presumed to be true? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Parimistti Seetharamamma vs. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC), wherein the facts of the case is not identical to that of the instant case?” 4 | P a g e ITA Nso.7042 - 7045MUM/2017 3. Brief facts are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was initiated in the case of Lalit Jobanputra Group by the investigation Wing of Mumbai, Income Tax Department on 19.08.2011 after receipt of in…

DCIT Cen Cir-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jac Air Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7043/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7042/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shir Sushilkumar Poddar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

…ents of such documents shall be presumed to be true? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Parimistti Seetharamamma vs. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC), wherein the facts of the case is not identical to that of the instant case?” 4 | P a g e ITA Nso.7042 - 7045MUM/2017 3. Brief facts are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was initiated in the case of Lalit Jobanputra Group by the investigation Wing of Mumbai, Income Tax Department on 19.08.2011 after receipt of in…

DCIT Cen Cir-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jac Air Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7042/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7042/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shir Sushilkumar Poddar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

…ents of such documents shall be presumed to be true? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Parimistti Seetharamamma vs. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC), wherein the facts of the case is not identical to that of the instant case?” 4 | P a g e ITA Nso.7042 - 7045MUM/2017 3. Brief facts are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was initiated in the case of Lalit Jobanputra Group by the investigation Wing of Mumbai, Income Tax Department on 19.08.2011 after receipt of in…

Ramesh Chand Prop., Narnaul vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Narnaul

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 69B

…5. That the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the income sought to be taxed is within the taxing provisions and there was in fact income, are propositions which are well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 which reiterates these propositions.” 7. The assessee also submitted that on similar facts for AY 2013-14 Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of assessee, vide order dated 25.04.2017 (PB-12). The assessee, therefore, pleaded that addition may be deleted. 8. Ld. CIT(A) observed that information from Manager PNB was obtained u/s 133(6) of the Ac…

The Peerless Gen.Fin and Investment Company Limited vs. Commnr. of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-001265-001265 - 2007Supreme Court09 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…nt the assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt. It has been held by the Supreme court that the primary liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it…

DCIT- (It)-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit-(It)-3(3)(2), Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai. Flat No.2, Hermes House –Iii, Vs. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai 400 025. Pan Abapk9122E (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V SreekarFor Respondent: S/Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala &
Section 143(3)Section 148

…unt falls within the taxing ambit is on the department and it is incorrect to place the onus of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetty Seetharaman vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) where it was categorically held that the burden lies upon the department to prove that a particular asset is within the taxing provisions. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the AO found that the assessee is a non resident Indian, was incorrect in making addition towards deposits found in foreign bank account maintained with H…

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6558/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Perey Pareliwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 56

…ld Pvt. Ltd. 26 taxman.com 163 (Mumbai –Trib.) 2. KDK Enterprises 57 Taxmann.com 284 (Mum-Trib.). 8 M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. The Ld. A.R. also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that every receipt is not an income. The Ld. A.R. finally prayed before the Bench that in view of the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal under identical facts and also in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act which has been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2010 by the Fi…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

…T that the investment in shares of AVIVA life insurance India Ltd is business of the assessee is ill founded as this is only a presumption and surmise of the PCIT contrary to the facts of the case in hand. 55. In the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs. CIT 57 ITR 532, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that all receipts are not income, but it is only those very receipts which have the characteristic of income is only chargeable to tax and the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the receipts are income. 56. In the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. in 57 ITR 35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occa…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

…T that the investment in shares of AVIVA life insurance India Ltd is business of the assessee is ill founded as this is only a presumption and surmise of the PCIT contrary to the facts of the case in hand. 55. In the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs. CIT 57 ITR 532, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that all receipts are not income, but it is only those very receipts which have the characteristic of income is only chargeable to tax and the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the receipts are income. 56. In the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. in 57 ITR 35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occa…

Nerka Chemicals P. Ltd, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4423/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Girish Dave Special
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(22)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 28Section 56(1)

…counsel relied on the decision of KDA Enterprises Pvt Ltd (supra) and the decision of Mumbai High Court in CIT Vs Bisleri Sales Ltd [377 ITR 144(Bom)]and in ITO Vs Bhagwan Industries ltd (ITA No. 6665/M/2008). the decision of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs CIT(57 ITR 532), decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case i.e. Nerka Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 371 ITR 280, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Prakriya Pharmacham (Spl.Civil Application No. 20492 of 2015), decision of Tribunal in DP World (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT 140 ITD 694 (Mumbai), Rupee Finance Management (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (SOT 174) (Mum), DCIT Vs Manish Che…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 MOTI ADHESIVES P. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 17(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI – 110 085 (PAN: AAACM9114E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 26.3.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld…

Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Mumbai vs. DIT (It) II, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3301/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Director Of Income Tax Anand Bhavan, 501, (International Taxation)Ii, 2Nd Babulnath X Lane, Scindia House, Vs. Chowpatty, Gr. Flr., Mumbai-7 R/No.007, N.M. Marg, Pan: Aahpm1375M Ballard Pier, Mumbai - 38 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vi)

…udhir Mulji DIT(IT) is a non-speaking order. The Ld. A.R. submitted that liquidated damages are not taxable either as capital gain or revenue receipt. She also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT (57 ITR 532 SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [325 ITR 422 (SC)]. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Kolkata Bench in the case of Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. 67 taxmann.com 41 (Kolkata-Trib.) and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries which has been relied b…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…d) 63 ITD p. 203 102-103 28 Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. DCIT (JP) (1999) 68 ITD 312 (Jp) 103 29 Kishan Chand chela Ram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 103-104 30 Gargidin Jawala Prasad v. CIT 96 ITR 97 (All) 104-105 31 Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC) 105-106 32 ACIT v/s Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) 106-107 33 P.R. Gupta v/s DCIT (2006) 36 Tax World 44 107 14 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 11. Ld. CIT(A) has neither appreciated the facts properly nor has applied the settled law in this regard. 12. During the course of appellant pro…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…2 ITR 273 (Del) Court on its Own Motion v. CIT vi) 365 ITR 143 (All) Rakes Kumar Gupta v. UOI vii) ITANo. 1331/D/2015 Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO dated viii) 22.1.2015 ITA No. 3534/D/2014(Del Tri) Munni Devi vs ITO68 STO 197 (Del) ix) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali 57 ITR 532 (SC) Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT x) 159 ITD 329 (Asr) Sh. Amrik Singh vs ITO xi) 108 ITD 115(Agra) Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs ITO xii) ITANo. 3873/D/2016 xiii) Assessment Year 2009-10 dated 23.01.2017 Zahid Hassan xiv) 15 In view of the above, the additional ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…2 ITR 273 (Del) Court on its Own Motion v. CIT vi) 365 ITR 143 (All) Rakes Kumar Gupta v. UOI vii) ITANo. 1331/D/2015 Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO dated viii) 22.1.2015 ITA No. 3534/D/2014(Del Tri) Munni Devi vs ITO68 STO 197 (Del) ix) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali 57 ITR 532 (SC) Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT x) 159 ITD 329 (Asr) Sh. Amrik Singh vs ITO xi) 108 ITD 115(Agra) Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs ITO xii) ITANo. 3873/D/2016 xiii) Assessment Year 2009-10 dated 23.01.2017 Zahid Hassan xiv) 15 In view of the above, the additional ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 144A

…2 ITR 273 (Del) Court on its Own Motion v. CIT vi) 365 ITR 143 (All) Rakes Kumar Gupta v. UOI vii) ITANo. 1331/D/2015 Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO dated viii) 22.1.2015 ITA No. 3534/D/2014(Del Tri) Munni Devi vs ITO68 STO ix) 197 (Del) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali 57 ITR 532 (SC) Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT x) 159 ITD 329 (Asr) Sh. Amrik Singh vs ITO xi) 108 ITD 115(Agra) Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs ITO xii) ITANo. 3873/D/2016 xiii) Assessment Year 2009-10 dated 23.01.2017 Zahid xiv) Hassan 15 In view of the above, the additional ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/55/2017HC Delhi25 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 68

…ot be sustained. Mr. Bhatia submits that the onus is on the Assessee to establish that each transaction is a loan and that this initial onus on the Assessee has not been discharged. He relies upon Parimisetti Seetharanamma v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1965) 57 ITR 532 (hereafter ‘Parimisetti’) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (hereafter ‘Daulat Ram’). Mr. Bhatia took the Court through each of the transactions and the documents filed by the Assessee to defend the deletions made by the ITAT and submitted that the genuineness of each transaction is in severe doubt. He also relied u…

Harmeet Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1939/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09 Harmeet Singh Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 (Pan: Bhrpa6630P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ent proceedings under section 147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2 is, accordingly, accepted." C. Apex Court judgment in the case of Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT reported in 57 ITR 532 has held as under:- "By sections 3 and 4 the Act imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the tax…