Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT

49 ITR 112Supreme Court of India1963#279 most cited

What is Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT authority for?

An assessee must explain the source of entries in their account books and prove that the sums are not income; the department is not initially required to prove anything. However, the department cannot unreasonably reject a good explanation, thereby converting valid proof into no proof.

281

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT · onus of proof · cash credit · unexplained money · source of funds · high denomination notes · Section 68 · Section 69A · department's burden · unreasonable explanation rejection

Also reported as

2 SCR 552

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 69ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 133(6)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 110section 69dpaper companyshare capital and share premiumsection 31section 251(2)creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourcesurvey under section 133asection 69baddition u/s 68section 250(4)

Judgments citing Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Shri Deepak Mohanlal Purswani, Rajkot

ITA 665/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.630 & 631/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-2022 & 2022-23) Hybrid Hearing Shree Deepak Mohanlal Puruswani बनाम The Dcit, Cc-1 Rajkot Nr. Maa Krupa, 4- Saurashtra Kala Vs. Aaykar Bhawan "Amruta Estate", Kendra Society, Opp. Nirmala Convent, Mg Road, Rajkot 360001, Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Ajvpp5139P (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/. Ita No.665/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2022-23) The Dcit, Cc-1 Rajkot बनाम Shree Deepak Mohanlal Puruswani Aaykar Bhawan“Amruta Estate", 2Nd Vs. Nr. Maa Krupa, 4- Saurashtra Kala Floor Mg Road Kendra Society, Opp. Nirmala Rajkot 360001, Gujrat Convent, Kalawad Road, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Ajvpp5139P Rajkot-360001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Bench: Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…ned show-cause notice contains nothing new but merely reiterating the previous allegation and hence, addition proposed in the SCN is in absence of any other cogent corroborative evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) has held that: "Before the department rejects such evidence it must either show an inherent weakness in explanation or rebut it by putting to the assessee some information or evidence which it has in its possession. The department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation convert good proof into no proof...... 1. In view of t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. Adhunik Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1069/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…sing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), it was held that if the explanation given by the assessee shows that the receipt is not of income nature, the department cannot convert good proof into no proof or otherwise unreasonably reject it. On the other hand, if the explanation is unconvincing, the same can be rejected and an inference shows that the amount represents undisclosed inc…

Sundaram Subramanian Rep. by Legal Heir S Sundaram, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2420/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

…ble/probable from prudent person point of view, then, it can’t be rejected by the AO without having any material to rebut the plausible explanation given by assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. v. CIT reported in [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), observed that: “the department could not act unreasonably and reject that explanation to hold that it was income. If, however, the evidence was unconvincing then such rejection could be made. The department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof”. 32. In the present facts of the case, we…

Sundaram Subramanian, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

…ble/probable from prudent person point of view, then, it can’t be rejected by the AO without having any material to rebut the plausible explanation given by assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. v. CIT reported in [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), observed that: “the department could not act unreasonably and reject that explanation to hold that it was income. If, however, the evidence was unconvincing then such rejection could be made. The department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof”. 32. In the present facts of the case, we…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Kanya Kumari Properties Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITAT/164/2025HC Calcutta09 Jan 2026

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 9Th January, 2026

Section 35(1)(ii)Section 68

…l was not justified in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68, based on the preponderance of probability and human consideration as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT, reported in | 1963] 49 ITR 112(SC)? i) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in providing his verdict in favour of the assessee where there is an organized tax evasion in the form of accommodation entry behind the curtain of donation u/s 35(1)(ii) for scientific research organization. It is well…

Deven Chaudhry, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…The Revenue has not established any contrary utilization of this cash. The Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. Sreelekha Banerjee and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, 49 ITR 112 (S.C) Therefore, the addition sustained is contrary to law and liable to be deleted. 20. Similar view was adopted in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram reported as (1959) 37 ITR 288 (S.C) “Where, however, the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts…

Sudhir Chaudhry, Mathura vs. Dc/Ac Circle 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…7.The Revenue has not established any contrary utilization of this cash.The Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. Sreelekha Banerjee and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, 49 ITR 112 (S.C) Therefore, the addition sustained is contrary to law and liable to be deleted. 20. Similar view was adopted in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram reported as (1959) 37 ITR 288 (S.C) “Where, however, the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the fact…

Manoj Anand, Guwahati vs. ITO W-2(2) Ghy, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…sing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), it was held that if the explanation given by the assessee shows that the receipt is not of income nature, the department cannot convert good proof into no proof or otherwise unreasonably reject it. On the other hand, if the explanation is unconvincing, the same can be rejected and an inference shows that the amount represents undisclosed inc…

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

…TR 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 at para (i) to (ix) of the assessment order. He a…

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

…preme Court in several cases. The Ratio decidendi as laid down by Hon'ble Apex court may be summarized as under: (2) Burden of Providing source of. credit in books of accounts ie on the assessee Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1953) 49 ITR 112, 117 examining the burden of proof u/s 68 has held when a credit entry appears by the assessee’s books of accounts in an accounting year, the assessee has a legal Obligation to explain the nature and source of such credit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in his later judgement in case of Seth Kalekhan Md, Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 has held If the assessee…

Vimalkumar Vajubhai Katrodiya, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Surat

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

ITA 1266/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1266/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Vimalkumar Vajubhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Katrodiya Income-Tax,Circle-2(2), Surat, Vs. 90, Mamta Park Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate- Spinning Mill Kapodara, 395 001 Varachha Road, Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqipk 2458 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

…f the credit remained unexplained. The assessee failed to establish the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and the capacity of the persons to give the credit. Hence, relying on the decision in cases of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112, 117 (SC), Shanker Industries vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 681 (Cal) and Oriental Wires Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 ITA No.1266/Srt/2024 A.Y 16-17 Vimalkumar V Katrodiya (Cal), the AO added Rs.10,09,16,505/- u/s 68 of the Act. The AO also added interest expense of Rs.23,47,810/- in absence of reply from the assessee. Thus, the tot…

Sonthalia Capital Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.958/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sonthalia Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata 3Rd Unit No.3, Floor, Ideal Centre, 9, Ajc Bose Road, Circus Aenue, So Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aabck 4477 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Company Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The 2017-18 & Declaring Total Income Of Rs. Rs. 10,14,610/-. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Appellant Company & Duly Complied With. Subsequently Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed On 24.12.2019 Determining Total Income At Rs.59,14,610/-. While Framing The Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Has Made Additions Under Section 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.25,00,000/- & 24,00,000/- With Respect To Loan Received From Linkwise Dealtrade Private Limited (In Short ‘Ldpl’) & Ambala Trafin Private Limited (In Short ‘Atpl’), Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e inference, it cannot be assumed in the absence of any material that there has been some illegalities in the assessee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notic…

Inder Kumar Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, 1 (1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1011/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ived interest. [Para 9 to 11 page 12] 8 Inder Kumar Nignotiya vs. ITO 1.4 It was also submitted that the explanation offered deserves acceptance and reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112. [Paras 12 to 14 page 13] 1.5 It was also explained that Assessee having disclosed and paid taxes on Rs.1,50,00,000 would not attempt to save differential tax of 15% on a comparatively meager sum of Rs.11,01,370. [Paras 15 page 13] 1.6 It was also explained that Section 68 converts non-income to income and since income had already been offered for…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. Expression Novelties Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1351/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…A of the 1.T. Rules. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not appreciating the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Sreelekha Banerjee v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that high denomination notes tendered for conversion by assessee contended as money other than cash balance without explanation of its source can be treated as income of assessee from undisclosed sources. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and…

DCIT- Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata vs. Vikrma Impex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 317/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सटस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 316 & 317/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata Vs. Vikrma Impex Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCV 0337 K) ) अपीलार्थी ( Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 29.07.2025 की यिथर्थ Date of Pronouncement/ 25.08.2025 आदेश उद्घोषणा की यिथर्थ For the assessee / Shri Miraj D Shah, AR यनर्ााररिी क…

DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata vs. Vikrma Impex Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सटस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 316 & 317/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata Vs. Vikrma Impex Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCV 0337 K) ) अपीलार्थी ( Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 29.07.2025 की यिथर्थ Date of Pronouncement/ 25.08.2025 आदेश उद्घोषणा की यिथर्थ For the assessee / Shri Miraj D Shah, AR यनर्ााररिी क…

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

ITA 3040/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 68

…ot to attract the mischief of section 68 or for that matter section 69C. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court innumerous decisions. Relevant portion from following case laws are extracted below: i. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) "It seems to us that the correct approach to questions of this kind is this. If there is an entry in the account books of the 7 ACIT-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/s. KDM Impex ITA No. 3040/MUM/2025 assessee which shows the receipt of a sum or conversion of high denomination notes tendered for conversion by the assessee himself, it is necessary for thea…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…(iv) CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) 11 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. (v) CIT vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) (vi) A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) (vii) Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) (viii) Renu T. Tharani vs. DCIT ITA no. 2333/Mum/2018-ITAT- Mumbai. (ix) Durai Murugan Kathir Anand vs. Addl CIT (2022) 443 ITR 423 (Madras) (x) Vivek N. Jajodia vs. ITO (2010) 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai) (xi) Konathala Nooku Naidu v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1 [2024] 160 taxmann.com 758 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.)[18-03-2024] [I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2023]…

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 902/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

…The ld. AR relied on various court decisions, including that of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd. in ITA No. 911 of 2010, and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sreelekha Banerjee’s vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 112, to support this principle. 16.3 The learned AR further submitted that in cases where the investment has come from the appellant’s own account and partly from third parties, the appellant cannot be compelled to explain the source of funds of such third parties. Since the AO has already accepted the . ITA No.901 & 902/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 17 fact…

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 901/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

…The ld. AR relied on various court decisions, including that of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd. in ITA No. 911 of 2010, and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sreelekha Banerjee’s vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 112, to support this principle. 16.3 The learned AR further submitted that in cases where the investment has come from the appellant’s own account and partly from third parties, the appellant cannot be compelled to explain the source of funds of such third parties. Since the AO has already accepted the . ITA No.901 & 902/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 17 fact…