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

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Sh Surender Kumar Prop, Ludhiana

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 747/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh

…on record according to the A.O. Mere furnishing of PAN and confirmed copy of account does not amount to discharging of onus. Just because a transaction is routed through banking channels, it cannot be held to be genuine. As held in Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT(SC) 107 ITR 938 and in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT(SC) 50 ITR 1, the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him and when the nature and source of the receipt cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on…

Surinder Kumar, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 475/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh

…on record according to the A.O. Mere furnishing of PAN and confirmed copy of account does not amount to discharging of onus. Just because a transaction is routed through banking channels, it cannot be held to be genuine. As held in Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT(SC) 107 ITR 938 and in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT(SC) 50 ITR 1, the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him and when the nature and source of the receipt cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…oblige to AO to prove or show the source of the cash available with the assessee where he finds him to have not satisfactorily explained the nature and source thereof (CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)). The provision is seemingly harsh, but that is not ground for not applying the same where it is otherwise applicable, being in fact in the nature of a statutory disallowance, so that it shall have effect where the conditions stated in the statute are met. It is the assessee who alone is responsible for the same for making the payments in ca…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1230/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1104/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1103/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1102/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1101/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1100/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1026/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1025/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1024/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled…

M/S. Aman Trading Corp., Jammu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jammu

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

ITA 255/ASR/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. Inderjit Paul (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 184(2)Section 420Section 68

…nst Rs.25.933 lacs being considered up till then, remained unsubstantiated. Even the claim of repayment of loans during the year at Rs.1.955 lacs was not evidenced by any material. The AO, accordingly, relying on the decisions in Roshan De Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), brought the cash credits for the year to tax in the sum of Rs.23,56,500/- u/s. 68, i.e., allowing the assessee benefit of Rs.2,36,800/-, holding as under: ‘14. I, therefore, in absence of any verification provided by the assessee of his books of account or any other documents, take the to…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…re nature & source of a receipt cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that income is from any particular source [Roshandi Haiti 107 ITR 938 (SC) & Kaiekhan Mohamma Hanif 50 ITR 11(SC)] It is a well accepted law that Section 68 provides for fulfillment of 3 basic conditions viz. (i) Identity of the depositor; (ii) Genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) Creditworthiness of the depositor. Further, the primary onus to prove the fulfillment of these 3 conditions lies on the assessee.…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…re nature & source of a receipt cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that income is from any particular source [Roshandi Haiti 107 ITR 938 (SC) & Kaiekhan Mohamma Hanif 50 ITR 11(SC)] It is a well accepted law that Section 68 provides for fulfillment of 3 basic conditions viz. (i) Identity of the depositor; (ii) Genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) Creditworthiness of the depositor. Further, the primary onus to prove the fulfillment of these 3 conditions lies on the assessee.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota

ITA 1207/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1206 & 1207/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 11-12 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Central Circle, 6/7, Multimetals Campus, Kota. Large Scale Industrial Area, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABCB 7695 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent C.O. Nos. 45 & 46/JP/2018 (Ari…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Baran Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota

ITA 1206/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1206 & 1207/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 11-12 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s. Baran Roller Flour Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Central Circle, 6/7, Multimetals Campus, Kota. Large Scale Industrial Area, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABCB 7695 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent C.O. Nos. 45 & 46/JP/2018 (Ari…

M/S Umashakti Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1592/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Umashakti Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, D-288-289, 165, Wadhwa Complex, Circle 27(1), Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu7064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Sehgal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th January, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Production Of Steels (Ms Ingots). It Filed Its Return Of Income On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.70,18,180/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Has Taken Unsecured Loans Of Rs.5 Lakh Each From Two Parties, Namely, Kailash Agarwal & Bishwanath Agarwal. He Asked The Assessee To Furnish Documentary Evidence For Identity & Credit Worthiness Of The Parties & Genuineness Of The Transaction. The Assessee Furnished The Confirmation Of Accounts, Copies Of Itrs & Bank Statements

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69A

…t produced any material that amount of Rs 1 lakh deposited in bank but u/s 68 the onus lies on the assesses to prove the identity genuineness and creditworthiness. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC)/Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) “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 of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assesses, it is open to the rev…

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 998/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settle…

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 997/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

…ssee, it is open for 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 as enumerated the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). Prima facie onus is always on the assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the assessee. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settle…