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

Gopal Extrusions Pvt Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jalgaon

ITA 1633/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 143(3)

…” 16. From going through the above provision, the initial burden is to be discharged by the assessee to explain the nature and source. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case(s) 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 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 invoki…

Gordhanram Bagtaram Devasi, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 1649/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gordhanram Bagtaram Devasi I.T.O. Ward (3)(2), Kalyan 226 Globle Market Opp Man Market 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Sahara Shoppee Gas, Saboo Vs. Murbad Road, Siddique Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400601 Pan No. Arupd 6722 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 44Section 44ASection 68

…id not comply and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v/s Joint commissioner of income- tax Jaipur [2007] 158 taxman 71(SC) Gordhanram Bagtaram Devasi 3 and Roshan Di Hatti V/.s CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a paper book containing 12 pages including copy of the Income-tax return filed by the assessee for year under consideration and bank statement of the assessee for the relevant period. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the re…

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…he source cannot be shifted on the assessing authority. If the assesse claims so, the assesse is required to prove the same. Further, 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 11 Kath Brothers vs. ACIT 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 re…

Jayanthi Rajagounder, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3146/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3146/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Jayanthi Rajagounder, The Income Tax Officer, No.F-1, First Floor, V. Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), Seenivasam Flat No.9, Chennai - 34. Durairaj Street, Palavanthangal, Chennai – 600 061. [Pan:Ahspj 9904F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K.B. Muralidharan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.B. Muralidharan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 69A

…eligible to receive the SBN notes during the demonetization period. Hence the entire cash deposits are to be treated as unexplained money/investments. 8.1 As enumerated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (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…

Prakash Chand Varindani, Jaipur vs. ACIT Certal Cirlce-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Soni, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 68

…of the assesse, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source (CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudallar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)/A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC)). In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under- "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 receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxati…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Arul Raja, Tuticorin

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2845/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.: 2845/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Arul Raja, Income Tax, V. 43J, Saint Peter Koil Street, Central Circle -2, Tuticorin – 628 001. Madurai – 625 002. [Pan: Aevpr-9611-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 09.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.67,96,000/- Made Towards Unexplained Money U/S.69A. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Holding That The Statement Made By The Assessee That The Source For The Cash· Was Withdrawals From Banks As A Plausible Explanation In The Absence Of Proof Evidencing The Transactions & Wrongly Observed That Burden Of Proof Shifted To The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

…Without rejecting the books of accounts making observation that the cash book was manipulated cannot hold good. 6.3.6 It is significant at this juncture to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) where in the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the burden of proving the source of the money found lies on the assessee, but once the assessee provides a plausible explanation, the burden shifts to the department to prove otherwise. In the instant case the appellant has claimed that, out of Rs. 67,96,000/-represents the cash withdrawn from bank a…

Ridhiraj Builders, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Ncrb, Jaipur

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

ITA 1167/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Sha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT a

Section 115BSection 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…explained cash investment cannot be presumed to be business income. If the assessee claims so, the assessee is required to prove the same. The onus is on the assesse to explain and substantiate the source. [Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08-03-1977], Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC)[08-02-1963]] Further unaccounted investment cannot be presumed to be from business income of the year as the sources can be numerous. It has also not been shown with sources details that it is only the earlier earned (during the same year) business incom…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 447 to 449/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 cuke Shri Tarachand Gupta ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke…

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/530/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

…ce 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 creditworthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking Section 68.…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/531/2023HC Delhi03 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 68

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru' V.C.)

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271A

…ere 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 inco…

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…no further issue regarding the applicability of the section 115BBE of the Act as that is a specific provision with respect to the taxation of incomes falling under sections 68/69/69/69C etc. In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "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 receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxa…

Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit, (Appeals), Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Office No.64,3Rd Floor Poddar Chambers, 23 Parsi Bazar Street, Fort Mumbai – 4000001. Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1137H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 55A

…how either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the 17 provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income". (iii) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) "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 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 pr…

ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Phoenix Infraventures and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 867/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 68

…s which is considered to be unsatisfactory and is therefore disbelieved mere fact that there is no evidence contrary to it, does not compel Tribunal to record finding in favour of party on whom burden lies. Similarly, in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT(SC) 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT (SC) 50 ITR 1 it has been held that 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 satisfactory explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…s of accounts. Further the appellant itself has stated that such assessment orders have been challenged before the honourable High Court in the writ petition. These assessment orders have not become final. (xlviii) In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) (08.03.1977) it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- x x x x In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) [08.02.1963] it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- x x x x As per judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC)/A. Govindarajulu M…

Pr. Commissioner Oflncome Tax Delhi - 5 vs. Mrs. Rowena Sharma

ITA/1220/2018HC Delhi11 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…a source cannot be shifted on the assessing authority. If the assessee claims so, the assesse is required to prove the same. Further, 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 i…

Mr. Goopalliappa Narasimhaiah, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2775/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2775/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Goopalliappa Narasimhaiah, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/150, Avalapalli (Village & Post), Vs. Ward 1, Hosur – 635 109. Hosur. Pan: Afjpn 2116A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate (Through Virtual Mode) & Shri D.C. Koushick, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)/Nfac’S Order Dated 03.09.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,50,000/- U/S.69A R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

…of the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account lies upon the assessee and the assessee has failed in proving the genuineness of the cash deposited in bank accounts. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), where 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 to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue. In the instant case the assessee fail…

ACIT Circle-22(1), Mumbai vs. Raheja Legacy Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2826/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 250Section 68

…account as required under the provisions of Section 68. The Supreme Court in the land mark case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation A.Y. 2018-19 (P) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and other cases relied upon by the appellant has 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 ca…