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 367,164 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 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69ASection 148Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditoronus of proofsource of sourceshare capital and share premiumpreponderance of probabilitysection 31paper companyaddition u/s 68survey under section 133aaddition under section 68share application moneygenuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT

Balgopal Merchants Pvt Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/232/2023HC Calcutta13 May 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…cision in Roshan Di Hatti Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 9 was referred to wherein it was held that if the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent 8 (2019) 15 SCC 529 9 (1977) 2 SCC 378 ITAT NO. 232 OF 2023 REPORTABLE Page 19 of 26 evidence and explanation the assessing officer would be justified in making the addition back into the income of the assessee. 23. The decision in N.R. Portfolio Private Limited was quoted with approval wherein it has been held that creditworthiness or genuineness of a transactio…

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

…assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors, but also the capacity of the creditors to advance money, and establish the genuineness of the transactions. The initial onus of proof lies on the assessee. This Court in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT, (1992) 2 SCC 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 sufficien…

Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle -2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…rted in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48(SC) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the the land mark case of “Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. 10 Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., AY 2013-14 CIT”[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and“Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT” [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition 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 credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invo…

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…3) SVS Oil Mills vs. ACIT, Chennai, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in ITA No. 765 of 2018 dated 26.03.2019 (4) Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 dated 27.04.2011, (5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) (6) Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. M Ganpati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 and A Govindrajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (7) Hon'ble ITAT Cochin Bench, Cochin in the case of M/s. Bhima Jewellers vs. PCIT Kozhikode in ITA No. 208/Coch/2018, Assessment Year 2013-14 also bring out a clear legal position that for any income to be treated…

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature.” 6.2.3 In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938(SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, in on the assessee. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced hereunder: “To put it differently, where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or of other property, cannot be satisfact…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Bst Infratech Ltd

In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned

ITAT/67/2024HC Calcutta23 Apr 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…money depends on whether two parties are related or known to each other, or mode by which parties approached each other, whether a transaction is entered into through 4 (2019) 15 SCC 529 5 (1977) 2 SCC 378 ITAT 67 OF 2024 REPORTABLE Page 21 of 35 written documentation to protect investment or whether the investor was a angel investor, the quantum of money invested, the creditworthiness of the receipt, object and purposes for which payment/investment was made etc. The incorporation of a company and payment by banking channel etc. cannot…

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…INDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More. 5. [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income-tax. 6. [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income- tax v. P. Mohanakala. 7. [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax. 8. [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax. 9. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-V N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. 10. A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 8…

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1035/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Inder Paul Bansal &For Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 68

…Vs. Empire Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi) 2) Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd., Vs. CIT [2017[ 77 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta) 3) Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd., [2017] 77 taxmann.com 110 (SC) 4) Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) 8. He further submitted that the case law relied by the revenue authorities are not applicable in the present facts of the case. During the course of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) also could have issued letter if he had any doubt but he did not do so. He relied on following decisions. 1) CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 21 taxm…

Mrs. Kiran Bala, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

…(3) SVS Oil Mills vs. ACU, Chennai, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in ITA No. 765 of 201S dated 26.03.2019 (4) Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 dated 27.04.2011, (5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) (6) Hon'ble ITAT Cochin Bench, Cochin in the case of M/s. Bhima Jewellers vs. PCIT Kozhikode in ITA No. 208/Coch/2018, Assessment Year 2013-14 7. The ld. CIT(A) held that these decisions also bring out a clear legal position that for any income to be treated as business income, the nexus/the source, has to be established; that hence, the a…

DCIT-19(1), Income Tax vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan (E-Filed), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 68

…y such credit entry as income of the assessee. Therefore, prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the genuineness of such credit appearing in its books. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) it has been held that 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. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the Assessing Officer to hold that it is the income of the appellant and no further burden is on the A…

M/S Global Technologies and Research vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs New Delhi (Import)

C.A. No.-009385 - 2022Supreme Court15 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 108Section 111Section 129Section 129ASection 14

…y paid or payable for goods as the transaction value. Exceptions are, however, carved out and enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that provision, the transaction value mentioned in the bills of entry can be discarded in case it is found that 1 (2019) 2 SCC 378 Civil Appeal no.9385 of 2022 Page 10 of 11 there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time or if the buyers and sellers are related to each other. In order to invoke such a provision it is incumbent upon the assessing officer to give reasons as to why the transaction…

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1034/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Inder Paul Bansal & Sri.Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Sri.Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Vice-President & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No.1034/Bang/2023 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner of 304 & 306 Gold Tower, 3rd Floor Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(2) v. Gold Residency Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. PAN : AAACK8043N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Inder Paul Bansal & Sri.Vivek Bansal Respondent by : Sri.Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2024 Date of Hearing : 07.03.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, V…

Digambar Rajaram Lonari, Mudhol, Bagalkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur

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

ITA 178/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 69A

…ce in respect of other business. The cash book was also examined by the AO. Accordingly, the AO after relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindrajulu Mudiliar vs CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807, 810 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 ( SC), CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) and Cit vs. M. Ganpathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC), Smt. Shrilekha Banerjee and Others Vs. Cit Bihar & Orissa, reported in 19464 AIR 697, dated 27/03/1963 & completed the assessment and made addition u/s. 69A of Rs.16,6…

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Munni Entertainment P. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3763/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 68

…me steps further of its own to prove the genuineness of the transactions by direct and corroborative evidence and must establish the capacity to invest / advance such funds by such persons. iv. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Roshan De Hatti Vs CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 held that in case of credits in the name of third parties, it is the duty of the assessee to prove identity or credits, capacity of creditor to advance money and genuineness of transaction. In the instant case capacity of creditor could not be proved. Mere filing of confirmation (CIT Vs Korlay Trading co. Ltd (Cal ) 232 ITR 820) or transaction th…

M/S. Brightstar Vincom Pvt.Ltd., 700007 vs. I.T.A, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Brightstar Vincom Pvt. Ltd…..…......................…...……………....Appellant 18/1, 4Th Floor, Room No.48, M.D. Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Aadcb2082R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Kolkata........…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 21, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 234Section 250Section 68

…d.” (supra) is concerned, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) 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 credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking Section 68. I…

Garuda Marketing Associates, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Sri. Narayanan P Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…court, which has to decide if it requires the same for pronouncing its judgement or for any other substantial cause, for which reference be made to r. 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, mandatory in character (Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)). We consider the additional evidence as to payment through banking channel during fy 2014-15 as satisfying this test. Payment during the immediately succeeding year, as now contended before us, is a piece of evidence toward the same, i.e., existence of liability as the end of the relevant year, and which further renders both, the non- furni…

Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bengaluru

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

…s, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by section 68 of the Act. 12.3 It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (107 ITR 938) (SC) that onus of proving the source of sum of money found to have been received by the assessee, is of assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness, then ld. AO must conduct enquiry and call for more details before invoking section 68 of the Act. If the assessee i…

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 68

…d.” (supra) is concerned, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition 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 credit- worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before inv…

M/S. Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Giriji G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 92C

…ss, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by section 86 of the Act. 6.3 It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (107 ITR 938) (SC) that onus of proving the source of sum of money found to have been received by the assessee, is of assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness, then ld. AO must conduct enquiry and call for more details before invoking section 68 of the Act. If the assessee i…

Thubagere Mudveerappa Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1146/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18 Thubagere Mudveerappa Enterprises No.9, 5Th Main Road, Apmc Yard Yeshwanthpur Ito Bangalore 560 022 Vs. Ward-6(2)(4) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No : Aaeft3444R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Prathibha R., A.R. Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 24.11.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Passed Under Sec. 144 Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Authority Is Opposed To Law & Not Valid & Accordingly Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Given Opportunity To Submit The Details & Allow To Give The Explanation About The Cash Deposits Were Made In Bank. The Deposits Were Made Out Of The Accumulated Cash Balances Relating To His Business. Thus, The Impugned Additions Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

…ported in 223-ITR-480, NFAC observed that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. The NFAC further observed that it is settled law that u/s 69A of IT. Act, onus is on Assessee to peruse the source of money as in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1992] 2 SCC 378 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. He further observed that on similar lines, the Hon'ble Supreme! Court in the case of Smt Srilekha Banerjee and others vs CIT, Bihar &…