How many judgments cite Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT?

477 judgments on BharatTax cite Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (107 ITR 938), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 115BBE, Section 69A.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

107 ITR 938Supreme Court of India1977#147 most cited

What is Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT authority for?

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

477

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT · Section 68 · assessee onus of proof · cash credits · genuineness of transaction · identity of creditor · creditworthiness of creditor · additions to income · unexplained money · Section 143(3) · Section 147

Also reported as

2 SCC 378

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 148 Section 144

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor onus of proof source of source share capital and share premium preponderance of probability section 31 paper company addition u/s 68 survey under section 133a addition under section 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Vaibhav Ginning Spinning Mill Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot

In the result, the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 826/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 826/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Dcit Vs. Vaibhav Ginning & Spinning Central Circle-2, Rajkot Mill Private Limited “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, National Highway – 27, Gondal Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Highway At Bhojpara, Gondal, Gujarat - 360311 Pan/Gir No.: Aadcv4397D (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/04/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…plicable in the instant set of facts. Page 21 of 27 ITA No.826/Rjt/2024 -AY 2017-18 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Ginning Spinning Mill Pvt. Ltd. 10.8 Likewise, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT reported in 2 SCC 378 are not applicable in the case of the present assessee. It is for the reason that in the case of Shri Roshan Di Hatti, the assessee failed to prove the necessary supporting documents with cogent reasons whereas in the present case, the assessee has furnished all the necessary documentary evidence discussed above. 10.9 In view of the above elaborate…

Abhishekbhai Ashokbhai Patel, Kadi vs. The ITO, Ward 1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1803/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

…peals) further observed that no evidence such as demat statements, contract notes, or broker details were furnished. Placing reliance on judicial precedents including Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), the CIT(Appeals) dismissed Ground No. 2. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in entirety. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Shri Abhishekbhai Ashokbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2010-11 - 4– 6. We have heard the rival submissions and…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Sanghvi Dhanrupji Devaji & Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6015/MUM/2025[AAQFS6338H]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sanghvi Dhanrupji Income Tax Central Circle Devaji & Co. 5(3), Mumbai 33, Mumba Devi Road, Room No. 426, 4Th Floor, Dagina Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaqfs6338H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M B Sanghvi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ground I - Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting/Allowing Relief In Respect Of The Addition Of Rs.

Section 250Section 40A(3)(a)Section 68

…made on different dates and also in different bank spread over for 15 to 20 days,, which the assessee could not substantiate with reasonable explanation. As enumerated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs Cil (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), it has been held in various judicial pronouncement that where the nature and source of any receipt/investment, whether it be a money or other property. cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open for the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no furt…

Amar Singh Rathore Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 24/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 24/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Amar Singh Rathore Shikshan Samiti, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Netaji Chowk, Katora Talab, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur 492001 (C.G.) Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aacta3313N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

…receipt of interest income and rent income of Rs.10,058 and 13,52,670/-Appellant has not furnished any source of the cash deposited in bank nor has provided any details of any business activity carried out by it. 7.2 In the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT(SC)107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT (SC) 50 ITR 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the Revenue t…

Deeya Agrotech Private Limited, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 492/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deeya Agrotech Private ITO Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (PAN:AADCD9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pankaj Mogra, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1962,[ herein after referr…

Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kasturi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3926/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, R. No. 316A, 3Rd Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बिाम Vs. Kasturi Jewellers P. Ltd., Gg-1/140A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aacck-7027-J

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Atul Puri, Chartered Accountant

Section 115BSection 139ASection 68

…assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of any sum credited in its books. The onus is always on the assessee to establish identity of creditor, capacity, and genuineness (Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT 50 ITR 1 SC; Roshan Di Hatti v CIT 107 ITR 938 SC; Kamal Motors v CIT 131 Taxman 155 Raj; CIT v Oasis Hospitalities 333 ITR 119 Delhi). Assessee in the present case did not provide complete customer details or evidence of the purported sales' bona fides most cash sales were below 2 lakh, evidently to bypass mandatory PAN compliance per section 139A and Rules 114B/114C. Para 3: The AO performe…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rama Shankar Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

…of Paper Book) iv) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF (extracted at pages 315 of Paper Book) v) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE F…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rajesh Rani Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Income Tax Department vs. Payal Khemka, K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

DCIT - CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 576/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

…o advance money; and • Genuineness of transaction This Court in the landmark case of Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT [Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT, (1963) 50 ITR 1] and, Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT, (1977) 2 SCC 378: 1977 SCC (Tax) 292: (1977) 107 ITR 938] laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and Mangalkalash Trading P. Ltd. 12 ITA No. 576/MUM/2019 creditworthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and cal…

Sanowar Ali Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1503/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 282

…scussed the provisions of sections 68 and 69A of the Act and relying upon the judicial pronouncements rendered in (i) Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC), (ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), (iii) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC), (iv) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and (v) CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC), has held as under: “8.8 In the present case it is seen that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as per the findings of the A.O. in the assessment order. Furthermore, even in the pr…

Asstt. Commisioner, Mumbai vs. Supreme Lake View Bungalows Private Limited, Powai, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5735/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…tablishes that such further inquiries /investigations have subsequently been conducted by Ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition, we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Hatti Vs.CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 78]. It is trite law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises. 5.4 Upon due consideration of the factual matrix, we find that no infirmity could be…

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Mallics Jewels, Lucknow

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 312/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 68

…68 of the LT.Act as unexplained cash credits in the books of account of the assesse as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving its source as explained in the case of 'Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 SC, Roshan Di Hatti V CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)', 'Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and others Vs CIT, Bihar & Orissa, reported in 1964 AIR 697, dated 27.03.1963', 'SumatiDaln V CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC)' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax V Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC)'. 2. The appellant crave leaves to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of appeal, as stated above, as and when need to doing…

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax- Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1948/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1948/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 R B Diamond House, Opposite Manohar Sarees, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon-425001 Pan : Aaifr9130Q Vs. Pne-C-1, Range-25, Circle-1, Cit, Jalgaon अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- "Ground No. 1: Ex-Parte Order Bad In Law 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ex Parte Order Passed By Cit(A)/ Nafc Is Bad In Law & Violates Principles Of Natural Justice. This Has Lead To A Denial Of Effective Opportunity For A Hearing. Ground No. 2: Violation Of Section 250(6) 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A)/ Nafc Failed To Comply With Section 250(6), Requiring Reasoned Findings On Each Ground Of Appeal. Ground No. 3: Non-Response Of Notices Due To Medical Issue 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hearing Notices Were Not Responded To Due To The Illness Of Ms. Rupal Bagrecha Who Is Taking Care Of Accounting, All Income Tax & Other Statutory Compliances. Her E-Mail Id Rupalbagrecha21@Gmail.Com Is Registered On The Income Tax Portal. She Was Suffering From Severe Symptoms Of Epilepsy & Undergoing Medical Investigation From February 2025 Onwards, Preventing Timely Communication Of Notices To The Tax Consultant, Constituting Reasonable & Sufficient Cause For Non-Response.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil

Section 250(6)Section 69A

…e 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 as held in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). The appellant has failed and therefore the grounds hold no merit and are dismissed. 3.5 It is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] a…

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Kanpur vs. Rajan Rajesh Kumar

The Appeal stands dismissed without being admitted

ITA/12/2024HC Uttarakhand17 Dec 2025

Bench: This Court Being Aggrieved By The Judgment & Order Dated 08.02.2024, Whereby The Appellate Tribunal Was Pleased To Allow The Appeal Of The Respondent. 3.

For Appellant: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel

Section 133ASection 151

…Associates vs. Income Tax Officer (2025) 174 taxmann.com 247 (Chattisgarh) (Paras 10 to 15) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ku. Pa. Krishnan (2012) 25 taxmann.com 130 (Madras) (Paras 10 to 12) 4. Roshan Di Hatti vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) (Para 3) 5. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sahara India [2013] 33 taxmann.com 550 (Allahabad) (Para-19) 6. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) (Para-3) 7. Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 3(2)(4) [2021] 125 taxmann.com 348 (Gujarat) (Para-32). 8. M…

M T Krishne Gowda, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 832/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. M. T. Krishne Gowda, Vs. Ito, Lakshmi Stone Crushing Industries, Ward – 1& Tps, Muduganur Arkalgud, Hassan. Hassan – 573 201, Karnataka. Pan : Arupk 5347 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R Uppin, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh R Uppin, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115BSection 68

…customers without any bills are unsubstantiated and relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Avdesh Kumar Jain Vs. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 443 and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the Page 3 of 5 case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938, dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the entire land ownership was proved and copies of RTC which is placed at Paper Book Page Nos.1 to 30 was referred and he filed labour…

Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2195/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 5– in treating the cash deposits as unexplained. In this context, the CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), wherein it was held that the burden of proving the source of a sum of money found credited in the books or received by the assessee is on the assessee. Further reliance was placed on PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the assessee must establish identity, creditworthiness…

Venkata Narasimham Thota, Kirlampudi Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 207/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.207/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Venkata Narasimham Thota, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Veeravaram, Kirlampudi. Ward-2, Pan: Achpt2895H Kakinada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…im to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income. (ii) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) COME "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 assessee is on him. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the 5 Venkata Narasimham Thota vs. ITO receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provision…

Manoj Anand, Guwahati vs. ITO W-2(2) Ghy, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…, the same could not be used against the assessee to make the additions. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad hanif Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan-Di-hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938, Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254, PCIT Vs. Sreeleathers (2022) 448 ITR 332. 3.4. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is bad in law even on the ground of violation of natural justice. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO collected the material and statement behind back of the assessee which were used ag…

Rajesh Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 47(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…es that there was any genuine transaction, and then the cross-examination request is of no help to the appellant. Reliance is placed on rationale in the following case laws:- 3 | P a g e "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT [1992] 2 SCC 378 has held that if the assessee fails to discharge its onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee." 5.7 The submissions made by the assessee were duly considered by the Assessing Officer as well as by the undersigned. As far as the purchase is concerned, th…