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 367,154 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

M/S Globus Real Infra Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2920/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Star Light Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6070/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Superstar Agency Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5832/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5831/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5744/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 5742/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…es and made Vishwanath Prasad (1968) addition of Rs. 92 lakhs @ 72 ITR 194 (SC) 2 percent as undisclosed • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT income received by the (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) appellant for routing these • Roshan Di Hatti V CIT transactions of having (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) been providing a fluid • CIT V Kerala Roadlines mechanism from one Corp. (1986) 162 ITR 669 company to another. (Ker.) Addition enhanced by Rs • Active Traders Pvt Ltd 92 lakhs for routing [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal.) transactions. (Para 7.9 & • Sri Krishna V CIT 142 ITR 7.10, page 24) 618 [All] • Rashibari Tobacco Case laws relied upon by the…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…roperty, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source [Roshan Di Haiti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC). 6.3.20 The initial burden to prove the genuineness of cash credit lies on the taxpayer. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of amounts of cash received and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature [GovindarajuluMudaliar vs. CIT [1958]…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…if the order has been passed by the lower authorities without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard then the Assessee must be allowed to file additional evidences, for this we draw support from Keshav Mills v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)], Roshan v. CIT [107 ITR 938 (SC)] and Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1]. Further in numerous cases including those of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court it has been held that when all the evidences are before the Tribunal, it must necessarily decide the issue instead of remanding the same. 24. Another important aspect of the matter is that the Ld.CIT(A) has made cer…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…if the order has been passed by the lower authorities without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard then the Assessee must be allowed to file additional evidences, for this we draw support from Keshav Mills v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)], Roshan v. CIT [107 ITR 938 (SC)] and Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1]. Further in numerous cases including those of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court it has been held that when all the evidences are before the Tribunal, it must necessarily decide the issue instead of remanding the same. 24. Another important aspect of the matter is that the Ld.CIT(A) has made cer…

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pipal Tree Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2490/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle – 13(1)(2), M/S. Pipal Tree Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, 108/109, Mehta Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, I.B. Patel Road, Next To Swati Mumbai-400 020 Studio, Goregaon, Mumbai -400 063 Pan/Gir No. Aaecp 4464 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Uodal Raj Singh Appellant By Respondent By : Shri Krish Desai Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Respondent: Shri Krish Desai
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…erty, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that this income is from any particular source – Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 937 (SC)/Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ItR 1 (SC). 5.12 When any sum is found to be credited in the books of accounts of an assessee who offers no explanation of the nature an source of the cash credit or if the explanation offered is not found satisfactory or reasonable, the money may be charged to tax as the assessee’s income from undi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. Tarun Devcon Private Limited, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenues’ appeal is dismissed in terms of the foregoing

ITA 18/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…eference, required to be proved by the assessee on the parameters of identity, capacity and genuineness. The assessee was accordingly required by him to produce the said creditors, which it failed to. He, accordingly, relying on Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal); and CIT v. Precision Finance P. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal), assessed the said credits as the assessee’s income on account of unexplained credit u/s. 68 for want of necessary satisfaction toward the creditworthiness of the creditors. 2.2 In appeal, the assessee furnished the source…

Manju Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 8275/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Manju Sharma, Vs Ito, Wz-43B, Meenakshi Garden, Ward-45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aatps2170A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishnan Sampath, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Proprietor Of M/S Eastern Galaxy Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Export Of Handicrafts & Decorative Items. She Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.47,10,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass With The Reason That There Is “Large Increase In Sundry Creditors With Respect To Turnover As Compared To Preceding Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Krishnan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144ASection 68

…; iii) Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) 8 iv) CIT v. K.M. Mahim (1995) 81 Taxman 222 (Ker.); v) CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465; vi) Gumani Ram Siri Ram vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 337 (P&H); vii) Roshan Di Hatti (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC); viii) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO (2010) 187 Taxman 338 (Raj); ix) CIT vs. Mihir Kanti Hazra (2015) 61 taxmann.com 315 (Cal); x) Pr. CIT-7, Delhi vs. Bikram Singh (2017) 85 taxmann.com 104 (Del); xi) Papneja Traders vs. CIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 752 (P&H); xii) T.P. Abdulla vs. ACIT, Central Cir (Kozhikode) (2012) 20 taxmann.com 402 (Ker);…

Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Kalash Metals Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 504/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 504/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K. Bhoopati, DR byFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…eport, he treated the above said parties as not genuine and by relying on various judicial pronouncements in the case of M/s Bhola Shankar Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vrs. JCIT (2004) 270 ITR 487 (Cal), Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, Roshan Di Hatti vrs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 937 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vrs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC), has dismissed the contention of the assessee and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act for the subscription value of shares Rs. 2.85 crores. 4. Further, assessee filed the details of payment of Mr. Amarchand Premchand Walmiki to the extent of Rs. 13,25,000/- and submitted that the abo…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 802/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…208 ITR 465 (Cal.): ♦ Proof of Identity of the creditors; ♦ Capacity of creditors to advance money; and ♦ Genuineness of transaction This Court in 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.”…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1365/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…se (supra) on the contrary supports the case of assessee. As regards onus, Hon’ble Apex Court in NRA’s case (supra) has held as under: “This Court in 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…