S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata

347 ITR 347High Court2012#1743 most cited

What is S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata authority for?

When considering the genuineness of a loan transaction, the initial onus lies with the assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation and sufficient material; if discharged, the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S.K. Bothra & Sons · HUF · 347 ITR 347 · Section 68 · cash credit · loan genuineness · onus of proof · initial burden · shifting onus · creditworthiness of creditor · satisfactory explanation

Also reported as

15 Taxmann.com 298

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 68Section 37(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qsection 193section 106section 65b(4)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementpermanent account numberretracted statementcreditworthiness of the creditor

Judgments citing S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata

DCIT, Cir.-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1762/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…f this finding, we find that the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the AA C, setting aside the assessment order.” 16. Further the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Bothra& Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata (347 ITR 347)also held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question whether the alleged loan taken by the assessee was a genuine transaction, the initial onus is always upon the assessee and if no explanation is given or the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer can disbelieve the allege…

ITO, WD-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Artlink Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1121/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…us, the assessee has been able to discharge the onus casted upon it to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditor. For taking such a view we rely on the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in S. K. Bothra & Sons HUF Vs. ITO 347 ITR 347 (Cal). The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Crystal Network (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Cal) has observed that the creditors cannot be disbelieved merely because they did not respond to summons when all other documents to substantiate the loan transaction has been filed before the assessing authority. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Da…

ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1768/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1768/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahcs 9726 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.D. Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…he sub-creditors to prove their creditworthiness.” 14 15 M/s Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 5.7. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata reported in 347 ITR 347(Cal) wherein the Court held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question whether the alleged loan taken by the assessee was a genuine transaction, the initial onus is always upon the assessee and if no explanation is given or the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer can dis…

ITO, WD-6(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Wiz Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1162/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…d that the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the AA C, setting aside the assessment order.” 11. We also take note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347 wherein the Court held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question whether the alleged loan taken by the assessee was a genuine transaction, the initial onus is always upon the assessee and if no explanation is given or the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer can disbelie…

S.Nageswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Supriyopal, JCITFor Respondent: 12.06.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘एस.एम.सी’ ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘SMC’ ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी,लेखा सद"य केसम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.399/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. S. Nageswari, No.3, J.Ratna Apartments, Salary Ward V(3), 35, Velachery Main Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 042. PAN: ACNPN3295P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri K. Meenakshisundaram, ITP अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Supriyopal, JCIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : 12.06.2017 सुनवाईक"…