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 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

Shital Nilesh Parakh, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahilyanagar

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

ITA 182/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shital Nilesh Parakh, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, 1, Main Road, Vambori, Ahilyanagar. Tal. Rahuri, Dist. Ahilyanagar- 413704. Pan : Aptpp5302G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Not Accepting The Agriculture Income Of Rs. 89,50,214 Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Assessee. Hence, The Impugned Order

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69C

…the income shown by way of agriculture has been inflated to the extent of Rs.12.36,575/- by way of receipt from undisclosed sources. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT (107 ITR 938) & in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT (50 ITR 1). 4.15 Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow exemption of agriculture income amounting to Rs. 5817639/- and add an amount of Rs. 12.36,575/- (Rs.31,32,575/-(-) Rs. 18.95,999/-) as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on this is…

Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

…ad submitted his reply, but neither any documentary evidences/explanation had furnished. The AO relied upon various decision, viz. (i) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), (ii) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC), (iii) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC), (iv) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar, 53 ITR 623 (SC), (v) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC), (vi) Shankar Industries vs. CIT, ITA No.60/SRT/2025/AY 2013-14 Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta 114 ITR 689, (vii) Shreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112, (viii) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194 (SC), (ix) Bomin P. Ltd. v…

Mohanbhai Becharbhai Chauhan, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1570/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi V. Pandya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271FSection 272ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…2 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), the CIT(Appeals) invoked the test of human probabilities and concluded that the claim of agricultural income was not substantiated. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), and held that unexplained money, if not properly explained by the assessee, can be assessed as income under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer was upheld CIT(Appeals) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. The ass…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…the burden having not been discharged, it was not permissible in law to draw adverse inference against the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: a) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan (extracted at page 282 of Paper Book) b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…the burden having not been discharged, it was not permissible in law to draw adverse inference against the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: a) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan (extracted at page 282 of Paper Book) b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.…

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

…re made and sustained applying the similar principles and these actions are mere codification of the earlier settled legal principles. In the case also it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) [08-03-1977] that even after the items (stock in trade) were "introduced in the books of account of its business", the assessee was still required to "to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these assets" and in the event of failure to prove these, "the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets represented the undisclosed in…

Anshuman Auto Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4152/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Anshuman Auto Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), 2126/59, Laxmi Bhawan, New Delhi Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0872H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Anshuman Auto Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), 2126/59, Laxmi Bhawan, New Delhi Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN: AAACA0872H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 28.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 28.10.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Natio…

Kemox Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 221/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 142Section 250Section 68

…n these credits, it is open for the revenue to hold that the sum credited, is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC). 11. It is also a well settled legal position that in order to discharge his onus u/s 68, the assessee must prove the identity of creditors, capacity of creditors to advance money and genuineness of transaction by filing documents such as confirmation, copies of bank statement, copy of financ…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

…e Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from a legal perspective and some of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

…e Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from a legal perspective and some of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: “This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad 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 creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking…

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…E IS NO ONUS ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO LOCATE THE EXACT SOURCE:- There is no presumption in favor of business income. Onus to prove is on assessee. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) [08-03-1977] that even Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT after the items (stock in trade) were "introduced in the books of account of its business", the assessee was still required to "to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these assets" and in the event of failure to prove these, "the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets…

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 672/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…E IS NO ONUS ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO LOCATE THE EXACT SOURCE:- There is no presumption in favor of business income. Onus to prove is on assessee. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) [08-03-1977] that even Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT after the items (stock in trade) were "introduced in the books of account of its business", the assessee was still required to "to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these assets" and in the event of failure to prove these, "the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets…

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 61/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…E IS NO ONUS ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO LOCATE THE EXACT SOURCE:- There is no presumption in favor of business income. Onus to prove is on assessee. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) [08-03-1977] that even Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT after the items (stock in trade) were "introduced in the books of account of its business", the assessee was still required to "to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these assets" and in the event of failure to prove these, "the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets…

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur, Jodhpur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 59/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…E IS NO ONUS ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO LOCATE THE EXACT SOURCE:- There is no presumption in favor of business income. Onus to prove is on assessee. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) [08-03-1977] that even Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT after the items (stock in trade) were "introduced in the books of account of its business", the assessee was still required to "to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these assets" and in the event of failure to prove these, "the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets…

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 57/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…E IS NO ONUS ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO LOCATE THE EXACT SOURCE:- There is no presumption in favor of business income. Onus to prove is on assessee. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) [08-03-1977] that even Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT after the items (stock in trade) were "introduced in the books of account of its business", the assessee was still required to "to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these assets" and in the event of failure to prove these, "the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets…

M/S Ankur Developers & Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

ITA 428/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 68

…imary obligation upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of any sum credited in its books. It is well-settled by decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 804), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif (50 ITR 1), Roshan Di Hatti (107 ITR 938) and P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278), that the Revenue is not required to prove the precise source of the monies so credited once the assessee’s explanation is found unsatisfactory. In the present case, moreover, Shri Dinesh V. Shah had himself admitted that on-money receipts in cash were routed back into the group’s books through the guise of such u…

M/S. Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1)., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, having been remanded back to the file of Ld

ITA 326/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed & The 2 M/S Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd. Following Findings Of Ld. Cit(A) Would Summarize His Stand:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue from a legal perspective and some of the passages deserve to be extracted for reference: "This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad 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 7 M/s Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd. received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness, then the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry, and c…

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

…wable in the hands of the appellant. 12 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala 5.12 While disallowing the claim made for Rs. 9,00,00,000/-, the AO has relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Roshan Di Hatti (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) which is distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, the appellant, in the case on hand has relied in support of his claim on the decisions rendered in the following cases: i) CIT Vs. Brandford Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (2002) 125 Taxmann 632 (Mad). ii) Gopee Nath Paul 7 Sons Vs. CIT (2002) 147 Taxmann 629 (Cal). iii) CIT Vs. P. Rajendran (1981)…

Nitu Khadariya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ncrb Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

…e of assessment proceedings not during the present proceeding the appellant has discharged his primary onus of explaining the credit entry appearing in his books of accounts. It is trite law as decided in many cases including In Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC), that the onus of proving the source of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him, if he disputes, it is not liable to tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation and in the absence of such proof the revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable income. In vie…

Nitaben Girishbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

ITA 1560/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

…to discharge the onus of proving the source of investment. No contract notes or satisfactory evidence were produced even during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (107 ITR 938) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) to hold that the burden lies upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the investment. In the absence of such explanation, the addition made by the AO under section 69A was confirmed. The appeal of the assessee was thus dismissed. 2.9 The assessee, being further aggrieved, is now in ap…