S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT

127 ITR 807High Court1981#2189 most cited

What is S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee explains a cash deposit in a bank account as sourced from a prior withdrawal from the same bank, the source is prima facie demonstrated. The revenue cannot disbelieve this explanation merely on surmise, but must prove that the previously withdrawn cash was not available for redeposit.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT · S.R. Venkata Ratnam 127 ITR 807 · cash deposit explained · prior bank withdrawal · source of funds · Section 68 · Section 69A · unexplained money · onus of proof · prima facie explanation · Karnataka High Court

Also reported as

6 Taxmann 263

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 115BBESection 143(3)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 148Section 143(2)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 158bcsurrender of incomepreponderance of probabilityunexplained moneysection 115bbsection 115bsection 158blimited scrutinysection 69section 69aput to usesection 158

Judgments citing S.R. Venkata Ratnam v. CIT

Smt. Hemavathi Ramesh, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 251/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Hemavathi Ramesh, The Income Tax Officer, No.86/188, 1St Cross, Ward – 6(2)(2), 3Rd Main Road, West Of Chord Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 086. Pan : Agspr 5799 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravi Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

…of cash deposited during the demonetization period was that amount was received six months prior and assessee could not have held the cash for more than six months. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of S. R. Venkataka Ratnam Vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 807 and in the case of Smt. P. Padmavathi and ITO in ITA No.414/2009, judgment dated 06.10.2010, had held that cash deposits out of earlier withdrawal cannot be totally disbelieved. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of S. R. Venkataka Ratnam Vs. CIT (supra) reads as follows: “5. There is some force in the argument of the lea…

Shri Hemant Pandya, Indore vs. The ITO 3(2), Bhopal

ITA 173/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Hemant Pandya, Ito-3(2), बनाम/ 139, Prabhu Nagar, Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajgpp 7486 G Assessee By Shri V.N. Dubey, Shri Ibrahim Kannodwala, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…om the bank account and no material has been brought by the Revenue that such money is not available with the assessee, then, the AO is not justified in making the addition. We find, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT, 127 ITR 807, has held as under: "There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the argument advanced by the revenue is, therefore, without any force. Once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, it was not for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to concer…

Sh. Suresh Kumar Agarwal, B-9, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 426/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18. cuke Shri Suresh kumar Agarwal The Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-9, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Ward 6(4), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAYPA 5992 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkj…

Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya, Vs. The Ito, Sriya, 109, 3Rd Main, Sfs 407, 4Th Ward – 3(3)(3), Phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan : Abips 5283 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Anil Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 69A

…nk account is preceded by withdrawal of money from the very same bank account, then the source of funds is prima facie demonstrated or explained by the Assessee. The Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R.Ventakaratnam Vs CIT, Karnataka-I & Others 127 ITR 807 has held that once the Assessee discloses the source as having come from the withdrawals made on a given date from a given bank, it was not open to the revenue to examine as to what the Assessee did with that money and cannot chose to disbelieve the plea of the Assessee merely on the surmise that it would not be probable for the Assessee to keep…

Smt. Karishma Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 99/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.99/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Ms.Karishma Sharma The Income Tax Officer, Kailash Building No.21 International Taxation V. Ward 2(1), Bangalore. Kodichikkanahalli Main Road Kaveri Nagar, Bommanahalli Bangalore – 560 068. Pan : Balps6030E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 O R D E R This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 29.11.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether Cash Deposit Of Rs.14.41 Lakh Can Be Considered As Unexplained?

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…as having borrowed a gold loan, yet another loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- and sale of paddy, are not established by proper evidence. In this context, it s useful to refer to a judgement of this court in S R VENKA TA RATNAM v CIT, KARNATAKA -1 AND ANOTHER reported in 127 ITR 807, where a single judge held; “Once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, it was not for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to concern themselves with what the assessee did with that money, i.e., whether he had kept the same in his house or utilised the services of a bank by de…

Mrs. Stella Suresh Srivastava, Mysuru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 647/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234Section 69

…me to time. 9. Similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Shri Jagannatha S. Shetty in ITA No.1220/Bang/2008 and by order dated 19.6.2020, the Tribunal held as under:- “7.1 The jurisdictional High Court in the case of S.R.Venkateswara vs. CIT (127 ITR 807) had an occasion to consider the availability of cash by the assessee from the withdrawals made earlier for depositing subsequently. In that case, amounts stood un-utilised for a period of 2 years. The jurisdictional High Court held as under: ‘Once the petitioner disclosed the source of Rs.15,000 having come from the withdrawal made ona given to…

Dheeraj Thakran, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2761/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dheeraj Thakran, Vs Ito, C/O Nagesh Bhel & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), 21/25, Moti Nagar, Hsiidc Building, New Delhi. Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aewpt8543B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 24Section 80C

…ely because the cash was withdrawn earlier, which was subsequently deposited in the bank account after a few days cannot be a ground to reject the claim. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT, 127 ITR 807, the ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:- “There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the argument advanced by the revenue is, therefore, without any force. Once the petitioner-assessee disclosed the source as having come from the withdrawal made on a given date from a…

Rangaswamy Hanumegowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 207/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142Section 143

…h assessee, subsequent withdrawal and deposit cannot be disbelieved by revenue authorities. He also submitted that this (Tribunal) while taking this view relied upon decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of S.R Venkatraman vs CIT & Ors. reported in 127 ITR 807. 12. On the contrary Ld.Sr.DR submitted that assessee submitted before authorities below that source of sum of Page 6 of 10 Rs.11,18,228/- can could not be explained and at the best the same can be added. He placed reliance upon orders passed by Ld.CIT(A). 13. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us…

Sumitra Devi Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1169/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Pallavi Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Man Mohan Kandpal (JCIT)
Section 69

…, no addition can be made in absence of any cogent material in possession of the Assessing officer, the ld AR has placed reliance on the following decisions:- • ACIT vs Baldevraj Charla and Ors. (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) • S.R. Venkatta Ratnam vs. Cit (1981) 127 ITR 807 (KAR) • ITO vs. Mrs. Deepali Sehgal (ITAT Delhi), ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 • Kolli Gopi Krishna vs. DCIT (2015) 42 ITR (Trib) 638(Hyderbad) 4. Per contra, the ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee has failed to submit any material to prove that cash so withdrawn in the previous f…

Sangeet Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 121/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 121/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sangeet Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Shri Purshottam Dass, A-38, Ward-62(4), Shankar Garden, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afypd2762F Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi Dated 30.08.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Legal As Well As Merits Of The Additions Sustained By Ld. Cit(A) But During The Course Of Proceedings, The Ld. Ar Did Not Argue Anything On The Legal Issues & On Merits There Is Only One Addition Of Rs.2,80,000/- Which The Assessing Officer Had Made On Account Of Deposits In The Bank.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

…he ld. AR submitted that it is wrong on the part of the assessee authorities to hold that assessee had utilized the withdrawals to some other specific purposes. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following decisions: " Sr. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 " ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla and Others 121 TTJ 366 " CIT Vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 " DCIT Vs Shri Nikhil Nanda in " M/s Moongipa Investment Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2605/Del/2007 " Anil Gupta Vs ITO in ITA No. 5645/Del/2013 4. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below. 5. I have heard t…

Sh. Surya Kant Jaipuria, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6781/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

…A) has sustained the addition of Rs.11,48,000/- despite the fact that the said cash actually belongs to JLSSPL and relied upon the decisions of ITO vs. C Atchaiah – 218 ITR 239 (SC), CIT vs. Nayan Engg Works – 248 ITR 596 (Mad.), S.R. Venkat Raman vs. CIT – 127 ITR 807 (Kar) and CIT vs. Kulwant Rai – 291 ITR 36 (Del.). 4 6. However, on the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by ld. AR for the assessee contended that since the assessee has failed to discharge the onus to explain the cash amount, addition has been rightly made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) and r…

Sh. Nanak Chand, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 552/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Nanak Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, 285, Durga Colony, Chopla Garh, Ward-3(4), Mukteshwar, Distt. Hapur Hapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akcpc7135L Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.11.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…l income, therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " ITO Vs Deepali Sehgal in ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 order dated 05.09.2014 " S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 (Kar.) " ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Del-C Bench) 14 Nanak Chand " ITO Vs Varun Kumar Saboo in ITA No. 5588/Del/2011 (Del.) " Suraj Bhan Bajaj Vs ITO 21 SOT 22 (Del) (URO) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the observations made in the said order…

Muralikrishna K, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1299/BANG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

…ly audited, the impugned addition is totally unwarranted which is only on mere surmise and required to be deleted in toto. In this connection, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 and also the recent judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. P. Padmavathi in ITA No.414/2009 dated 06.10.20 10. 27. We find that the cash book and the assessee’s accounts have been audited and audit report u/s. 44AB has also been obtained. No discrepancy has been noted and the entries made in the cash book are therefore correct.…