Shankar Ind v. CIT

121 ITR 890High Court1980#3763 most cited

What is Shankar Ind v. CIT authority for?

Merely establishing the identity of a creditor is insufficient to discharge the onus on the assessee regarding the genuineness of a transaction; further evidence is required.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shankar Industries v. CIT · section 131 · section 133(6) · section 68 · genuineness of transaction · unexplained cash credit · identity of creditor · onus on assessee · confirmatory letters · account payee cheque

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

genuineness of the transactionunexplained cash creditsection 133(6)section 68previous yearsection 143personcompanydocumentsection 14total incomebusiness

Judgments citing Shankar Ind v. CIT

M/S Sashi Cables Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 793/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2009-10 M/s Sashi Cables Ltd Commissioner of Income बनाम Laha Paint House,7, C.R. Tax-1, P-7, Chowringhee / Avenue, Kolkata-72 V/s. Squar,Kolkata-72 [PAN No.AAECS 0433 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, AR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Mem…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lotus Grih Nirman P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3998/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 8(2)(2), M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Room No. 212/216A, 2Nd Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 419, Laxmi Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Road, Mumbai-400020. Estate, Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400059. Pan No. Aabcl0864D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…to advance money; and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in the decision in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. However, we find that the AO has failed in the instant case to find fault with the submissions made by the assessee. The AO could have made investigations to find out the truth of the case. On the othe…

K Vrushali, Thane vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. K. Vrushali, 4-D, Income Tax Officer- Regency Park, Eden Woods, Vs. 11(1)(2), Mumbai Pawar Nagar Thane- 400610. Pan No. Agypk5387J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

…pacity of the creditor to advance money and the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596, Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331. In view of the factual matrix and position of law mentioned above, we admit the additional evidence and remit the matter to the file of the AO to make a de novo order, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/e…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…ore, merely establishing the identity of the creditor was not enough. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Shankar Industries Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C Kant & Co. Vs CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Prakash Textile Agency Vs CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd. Vs CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial & Industral Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " M.A. Unneeri Kutty Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker) " CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470 (Cal) " Bharati P. Ltd. Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) " CIT Vs W. J. Walker &…

Mukund Kumar Mantri, Siliguri vs. I.to.WD - 1(3), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 1878/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtapsh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(2)

…ion. Only after these three things proved prima­facie, only then the burden shifts on the department. Merely establishing the identity of the creditor is not enough [ref. Shankar Industries vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal); Prakash Textile Agency vs CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) Mere filing of particulars of the cash­creditor is not enough. In the case of CIT vs Baishnav Charan Mahanti (1995) 212 ITR 199 (Ori), it was held that only when all 3 conditions fulfilled, then the burden shifts to the department. But in this case, the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the alleged creditor and/or donor. Ther…

Gn Resound India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gn Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office No. 1201, 1202, 1203, Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. 12Th Floor, V. Times Square, Mumbai. Plot No. 3, Sector 15, Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccg3984C Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

…to advance money, and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced the evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid transaction, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890. In the instant case the appellant has failed to adduce the evidence before the AO to establish the prima facie of the aforesaid transaction as evident from the finding at para 8 hereinbefore. It has been held in Govindarajulu v. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC); Lakhmichand v. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC); Kalekhan v. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC) that where an assessee has fail…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…207 taxmann.com 185 (Bom) iv. Bisaka Shares Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No. 1493/Kol/2013 v. CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) vi. Shankar Industries vs. CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal) vii. C. Kant & Co. vs. CIT 126 ITR 63 (Cal) viii. Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT 121 ITR 890 (SC) ix. Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd. vs. CIT 131 ITR 688 (Cal) 9 M/s. Jasamrit Constructions P. Ltd. x. CIT vs. United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal) xi. M.A. Unneeri Kutti vs. CIT 198 ITR 147 (Ker) xii. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal) xiii. CIT vs. Nova Promotors & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 16…

Bhushan Uttamrao Bachhav, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 503/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 44ASection 68

…urnished inaccurate particulars and thus concealed his income and therefore, I am satisfied that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable. Accordingly, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated.” 7. AO relied on the following decisions : 1. Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT 121 ITR 890 – Calcutta High Court 2. Premnath Goyal & Co. Vs. CIT 271 ITR 390 – Delhi High Court 3. CIT Vs. Ajay Kumar 259 ITR 240 – Rajasthan High Court 4. CIT Vs. Heeralal 257 ITR 261 – Rajasthan High Court 5. Shri Sohan Vs. CIT 256 ITR 659 – Punjab & Haryana High Court 6. Roopchand Vs. CIT 235 ITR 461 Guwahati High Court 7. Rajshree Vs. CIT 256 ITR 331 –…

Smt. Gialso Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…y Vs ICT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (All) " Jalan Timber Vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 " CIT Vs Karley Traders Co. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) " Shanker Ind. Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT (198)) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Parkash Textile Agency Vs ICT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Ind. (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercials & Ind. Co. (1991) 187 ITR 597 (Cal) " M. A. Uneer Kutly Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) " CIT Vs Jalan Timbers 223 ITR 11 (Gau) " CIT Vs Sreelekha Bannerjee 491 ITR 112 (SC) " Sanker Industries Vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1943/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…dentity of the creditor (ii) capacity of such creditor to advance money & (iii) genuineness of the transaction. [Vide Shankar Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.); C. Kant & Company v. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal.); Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal.); Oriental Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688; CIT Vs. B.C. Mohanty (1995) 212 ITR 199 (Ori.); Jalan Timbers Vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau.) & CIT vs. Korlay Trading Company Ltd. (1999) 232 ITR 820 If all the aforesaid three conditions are proved the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove that the amount belonged to the as…

M/S. Rajsadan Overseas Sales(P)Ltd, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Choudhury, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

…Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Ker) 229 ITR 548, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938, C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT (Cal) 126 ITR 63, Bharat P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 111 ITR 951, Dhanalakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780, Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT (Cal) 121 ITR 890, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 70 ITR 407, Sanil K.M.P. Vs. CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481 etc. It is also a fact that mere filing of Income Tax file number or PAN is not enough to prove genuineness of cash credit as held in CIT Vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal) 232 ITR 820. Further, cash credit can be assessed even if transaction…