How many judgments cite Shankar Industries v. CIT?

117 judgments on BharatTax cite Shankar Industries v. CIT (114 ITR 689), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Shankar Industries v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 69, Section 142(1).

Shankar Industries v. CIT

114 ITR 689High Court1978#907 most cited

What is Shankar Industries v. CIT authority for?

To explain cash credits in books under Section 68, the assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, their capacity to advance the money, and the genuineness of the transaction. Failure to establish these three elements results in the addition being upheld.

117

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

Shankar Industries v CIT · 114 ITR 689 · Section 68 Income Tax Act · cash credits onus of proof · identity capacity genuineness · creditor's creditworthiness · unexplained share capital · burden of proof section 68 · addition under section 68 · unexplained cash credits

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 69 Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source section 31 paper company creditworthiness of the creditor share capital and share premium section 251(2)section 251(1)(a)onus of proof live link admission of additional evidence addition u/s 68 entry operator

Judgments citing Shankar Industries v. CIT

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs. Tapan Kanti Roy

ITAT/224/2025HC Calcutta11 Mar 2026

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 131Section 68

…rove a loan transaction from the point of verifiability of the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta propounded these principles way back in 1978 through the case of Shakar Industries reported in 114 ITR 689 (Cal). On this issue this case law has been relied on in a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also and therefore, this case has the strength of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In light of this case law, we need to examine whether the assessee could prove the impugned transaction or not. It is seen that as far as the…

Prodigy Infomatics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, 15(2)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed

ITA 2124/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishprodigy Infomatics Private Vs. Ito, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Limited Director Ito, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Plot No. D- 388, Midc, Ttc Aayakar Bhavan Industrial Area, Kukshet Mumbai- 400020 Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan/Gir No. Aadcp3211A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 18.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal.

Section 250Section 68

…ings must be proved prima facie by the assesse and only after the assesse has adduced evidence to establish the identity of the creditor is not enough. This view finds support in the following judgments of the Hon'ble Courts. (Shankar Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal), C.Kant & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63(Cal), Prakash Textile Agency v. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (CAL) Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd., vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 (CAL), CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal), M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker.). 5.6 It has also been held in…

Mark Steels Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ablishes all three pillars including capacity of the creditor, which aligns with the Investigation Wing's finding of shell-like entities with nil turnover and inflated bank turnover. Further in the case Shankar Industries v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1978] 114 ITR 689 (CAL.) Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA reiterates that the assessee must prima facie prove the Identity, capacity of the creditor to advance money, and genuineness, failing which section 68 addition is warranted. In PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld additions where investor entities had negl…

Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

…ITR 1 (SC), (iii) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC), (iv) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar, 53 ITR 623 (SC), (v) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC), (vi) Shankar Industries vs. CIT, ITA No.60/SRT/2025/AY 2013-14 Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta 114 ITR 689, (vii) Shreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112, (viii) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194 (SC), (ix) Bomin P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 160 ITR 477 (Guj.), (x) ITO vs. Diza Holdings (P.) Ltd., 255 ITR 573 (Ker.) and (xi) Smt Iva Gogoi vs. CIT, 254 ITR 576 (Gau.). The AO made total additions/disallowances of Rs.28,70,370/-, which is mentioned a…

Kemox Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 221/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. D.R

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 142Section 250Section 68

…confirmation, copies of bank statements of creditors, copies of ITR of creditors and copies of their financial statement, then only burden shifts to the department. For this proposition the reliance is placed on following decisions: Shankar Industries vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta). Harichand Virender Paul vs CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H HC). CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC). CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta). Dhanlaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills vs CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP). Sanil K. M. P. vs CIT 177 Тахтап 481 (Kerela). 12.1 The appellant is heavily relying on the documents such as copy of ITR, finan…

The ACIT Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham vs. Softel Machines Limited, Gandhidham ( Kutch)

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

ITA 175/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 68

…nd lastly, the genuineness of the transaction. These things must be proved prima facie by the assessee and only after the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts on the department-[Shanker Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.)]. Thus, in view of the above discussion and fact of the case, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has failed to furnish the required details to support its claim and to discharge the primary onus cast u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, share capital received during the year of Rs.1,28,00,000/-, was held to the cash credit of assesse…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…elates to share capital/share premium transactions, not loan transactions. It does not address the effect of loans being squared off or repaid in the same financial year. Hence, not directly applicable to the present issue. 4. Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.) Laid down that for cash credits in the books, the assessee must prove (i) identity of creditor, (ii) capacity of creditor to advance the money, and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. In that case, the assessee proved only the identity of the creditor and failed to establish the other two elements. Hence, the addition was upheld. Distinc…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…lates to share capital/share premium transactions, not loan transactions. It does not address the effect of loans being squared off or repaid in the same financial year. Hence, not directly applicable to the present issue. 4. Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.) Ο Laid down that for cash credits in the books, the assessee must prove (i) identity of creditor, (ii) capacity of creditor to advance the money, and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Ο In that case, the assessee proved only the identity of the creditor and failed to establish the other two elements. Hence, the addition was upheld. Dis…

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 1, C-Scheme, Jaipur

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

ITA 538/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Tetuka, Adv., ARFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…laws is not restricted to criminal offenses punished with imprisonment but also applies to laws that provide for other penal consequences, such as fines and penalties. R. That the case laws relied upon by the department [(2014) 50 taxmann.com 368 Del), (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal), (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal)] are distinguishable, as in those cases the assessee could not provide PAN No., balance confirmation to prove the credit worthiness of the parties. In contrast, in the present case the Appellant had produced the balance confirmation from all the creditors apart from the PAN no. and address of the assessee. The appe…

Shri Prabhudayal Beriwal, Jyotinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dibrugarh

ITA 93/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

…ed before us, including the orders of authorities below. At this stage, we need to remind ourselves about the mandate given u/s 68 of the Act. To this extent, we may refer to the locus classicus on the subject, being the case of Shankar Industries reported in 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta). Though this case never travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court but it has been relied on several Apex Court judgments on the subject and hence this case law assumes the strength of an Apex Court decision. The important findings in this case are extracted as under: “The law on this point is now well settled. It is necessary for the…

Income Tax Officer-1, Morena vs. Shri Agrasen Logistics, Jotai Road, Porsa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…s; (ii) their creditworthiness; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. The department's exercise starts only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, by the assessee. 12. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court) in Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 has held that the Assessee must prove identities of creditors, capacity of creditors to advance moneys and genuineness of the transactions, then only burden will fall on the revenue. Establishing identity of creditor is not sufficient. 13. The Ld. AR has contended that the identity of the creditors had been established by the assessee. However, i…

Mohan Dagadu Chougale, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1312/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ction. Once the assessee has discharged his primary onus by submitting supporting documents for above three ingredients, then only burden shifts to the department. For this proposition the reliance is placed on following decisions: * Shankar Industries vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Calcutta) * Harichand Virender Paul vs CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H HC) * CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) * CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) * Dhanlaxmi Steel Re-rolling Mills vs CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) * Sanil K. M. P. vs CIT 177 Taxman 481 (Kerela) 32. The facts of the present case clearly suggest that the appellant has fail…

Shree Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur vs. AO Circle 4 Jaipur, Cr Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ent but did nothing on non-compliance therewith; such letters did not therefore carry any conviction about the explanation of the assessee. Loan amount was rightly held as assessee's own undisclosed income. 8.21 In the cases of Shankar Industries Vs CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Hari Chand Virender Paul Vs CIT (P&H) 140 ITR 148, CIT Vs Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 CIT Vs Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465 Dhanalakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780 and in the case of Sanil K.M.P. Vs CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of credit-mere proof of identity of credit…

Dy. Commmissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Prasad Shetty, Sion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Prasad Shetty Income Tax Plot No.8, Sarvodaya, Mumbai Near Sion Railway Station Mumbai- 400 022 PAN/GIR No.AAZPS9377D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.3/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.6256/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year :2017-18) Prasad Shetty Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Plot No.8, Sarvodaya, Income Tax Near Sion Railway Mumbai Station Mumbai- 400 022 PAN/GIR No.AAZPS9377D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dharmesh Shah / Ms. Jigna Shah Revenue by S…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena, Jaipur

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…placed before the Ld AO and the onus shifted to the Ld AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the Ld AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the case of Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.), the Calcutta High Court held that it is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof Includes proof of the identity of his creditor, the capacity of such creditor to advance the money and lastly the genuineness of the transaction. Only after the assessee…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…sthan)212 ITR 390 22-24 7. CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. [2011] 9 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi) (High Court 25-34 of Delhi)[333 ITR 119 (Delhi)] 8. Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (Supreme Court of India) 35-43 9. Shankar Industries vs. CIT[1978] 114 ITR 689(High Court of Calcutta) 44-47 10. Hari Chand Virendra Pal Vs. CIT (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) [1982]11 48-50 Taxman 134 /140 ITR 148 11. CIT vs. Biju Patnaik[1986]26 Taxman 324 (SC)/[1986] 160 ITR 674(SC) 51-59 12. Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs.CIT, 93 Taxman 561/ 228 ITR 780(High 60-63 Court of Andhra Pradesh) 13. Sanil K.M.P vs. C…

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” 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, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 322/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2018-19 cuke Venkateswara Wires Pvt Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of Vs. E-55, Road No. 5, VKI Area, Income Tax, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCV 5085 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh vksj…

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…on. It is only when the assessee discharges this primary onus, that onus shifts to the Department. Merely establishing the identity of the creditor is not sufficient. This is the ratio in a large number of decisions including Shankar Industries Vs. C1T (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 &. Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596 599 (Cal); M.A. Unneeri Kutti Vs. CIT, (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker), Special Leave petit on d…

ITO, Ward-1, Narnaul vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Narnaul

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

ITA 944/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

…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 to show that the income is from any particular source. In the case of Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.), the Calcutta High Court held that it is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof includes proof of the identity of his creditor, the capacity of such creditor to advance the money and lastly the genuineness of the transaction. Only after the assessee…