Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT

171 ITR 532High Court1988#2235 most cited

What is Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT authority for?

Section 68, dealing with unexplained cash credits, applies only when an amount is found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee. If the assessee does not maintain books or the credit is not found in their books, an addition under Section 68 cannot be made.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT · 171 ITR 532 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · books of account · credit in books · no books of account · applicability of Section 68 · Bhaichand N. Gandhi · addition under Section 68

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 69Section 115BBESection 153DSection 234BSection 234CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceaddition u/s 68addition under section 68unexplained cash creditsection 44absection 68genuineness of the transactionundisclosed incomesection 115bbsection 69section 250(6)section 263

Judgments citing Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…hat even the bank account of the assessee is not the books of the assessee and had thus deleted the addition by holding that section 68 of the Act is inapplicable. Further the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi vs CIT reported in 171 ITR 532 have held that even the balance sheet is not the books of the assessee. In such circumstances, the CIT (A) has grossly erred in holding that section 68 of the Act could be made applicable. It is again well settled rule of law as has been applied by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases referred to above that no addition can be made on the basis of th…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…hat even the bank account of the assessee is not the books of the assessee and had thus deleted the addition by holding that section 68 of the Act is inapplicable. Further the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi vs CIT reported in 171 ITR 532 have held that even the balance sheet is not the books of the assessee. In such circumstances, the CIT (A) has grossly erred in holding that section 68 of the Act could be made applicable. It is again well settled rule of law as has been applied by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases referred to above that no addition can be made on the basis of th…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3037/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…hat even the bank account of the assessee is not the books of the assessee and had thus deleted the addition by holding that section 68 of the Act is inapplicable. Further the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi vs CIT reported in 171 ITR 532 have held that even the balance sheet is not the books of the assessee. In such circumstances, the CIT (A) has grossly erred in holding that section 68 of the Act could be made applicable. It is again well settled rule of law as has been applied by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases referred to above that no addition can be made on the basis of th…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3036/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…hat even the bank account of the assessee is not the books of the assessee and had thus deleted the addition by holding that section 68 of the Act is inapplicable. Further the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi vs CIT reported in 171 ITR 532 have held that even the balance sheet is not the books of the assessee. In such circumstances, the CIT (A) has grossly erred in holding that section 68 of the Act could be made applicable. It is again well settled rule of law as has been applied by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases referred to above that no addition can be made on the basis of th…

Sh. Vikrant Kanshal, Bathinda vs. The Icnomet-Ax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vikrant Kansal Prop. Vs. ITO Ward 1(3), V.K. Teleservices, Bathinda Bathinda [PAN: AGVPK 6899E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.) Respondent by: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.07.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘CI…

Danveer Singh, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4036/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ase. ” 2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the assessee, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate that the addition u/s.68 cannot be made on account of cash deposits in bank and he relied upon the decision of courts of law in this regard. The cases relied upon are 171 ITR 532 (Del), 141 ITR 67 (Bombay), 292 ITR 232 (Mad.), 71 ITD 324 (Chd ITAT). In particular he relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Roopak Jain vs. ITO, ITA No.5592/Del/2015 vide order dated 30.08.2016 on identical issue. 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 5. I have heard the…

V.Rajendrababu, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 141/CHNY/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 68

…the Act could not have applied. Further according to him, unless and until the credits appeared in the books of accounts, an addition could not be made u/s. 68 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judgments. 1. Smt. Shantha Devi vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 532 (P & H) 2. CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) 3. Anand Ram Raithani vs. CIT ( 1997) 223 ITR 544 (Guj) Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 5. despite summons, concerned creditors did not appear before ld. Assessing Officer. According to him, a number of opportunities were :- 4 -: granted to the assessee t…

Sh. Naresh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3998/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

…of the assessee stated that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts as well as ITAT Benches including the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shanta Devi vs. CIT reported in 171 ITR 532 and ITAT, Amritsar Bench decision in the case of Yadwinder Singh vs. ITO passed in ITA No. 508(Asr)/2014 dated 24.2.2016 reported in (2016) 48 ITR (Rib) 0328 (Amritsar). He stated that admittedly the assessee is not maintaining the books of accounts in his ordinary course of business and AO had made the addition in dispute u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act…

Bimal Chandra Hazra, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-52(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 834/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-07) Shri Bimal Chandra Hazra Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - C/O P.K.Mathur, Advocate, 1 52(2) Aayakar Bhavan, Meredith Street, Kolkata- Dakshin, 2 Gariahat Road, 700072 Kolkata-700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abcph 5382F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : S.M. Surana, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Banibra Dutta, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-2007, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata In Appeal No.123/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward/52(2)/Kol/09-10, Dated 16.01.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2008. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 35,50,000/- In His Bank Account With The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Ultandanga Branch, Kolkata On Various Dates During The Financial Year 2005-06. The Authorised Representative (Ar) Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Submitted His Explanation Through Letter Dated 27- 12-2008 Stating That The Following Amounts Were Deposited In Cash In His

For Appellant: Shri Banibra Dutta, Addl.CITFor Respondent: S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ay High Court Bhaichnad N Gandhi (supra). Therefore, the provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked on various deposits/ credits found recorded in the bank account of the assessee in the absence of books of the assessee maintained for that previous year.” (3) 171 ITR 532 ( P & H-HC)Shanta Devi V. CIT “Perusal of section 68 of the Income Tax Act would show that in relation to the expression “books” the emphasis is on the word “assessee”. In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee maintained no books of account…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Anand Jewellers, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4583/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)

…ined that the credit entries in the name of 10 ITA No.4583/Del./2011 partners represents the amount invested by them the burden of proof stood discharged and the amount cannot be treated as income of the firm under s. 68." • In Smt Shanta Devi vs. CIT (1998) 171 ITR 532 (P&H), it was held: "Books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee. Addition in respect of cash credit found in the books of partnership firm in which assessee was a partner, cannot be made in the assessee's hands." • In CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334(Del), the Hon'ble High Court of…

S R Rajendra Kumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1092/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. T. V. Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kaleemulla Khan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…t of books of account of the assessee. As per the Ld. AR pass books cannot be considered as books of account and hence Section 68 could not be attracted. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shanta Devi v. CIT (171 ITR 532) and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67). 06. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the order of lower authorities. ITA.1092/Bang/2014 Page - 4 07. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Sole ground taken by the assessee is that Section 68 would not be attracted since ba…