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.

How many judgments cite Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT?

281 judgments on BharatTax cite Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (49 ITR 112), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 69A, Section 143(2), Section 147.

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (49 ITR 112)

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IT(1963) 50 ITR 1(SC), Govindarajulu Mudaliar(A) v. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 807(SC), CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC), that the onus of proving the source of any money received by the assessee is upon him. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT(1963) 49 ITR 112(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there is an entry in the account books of the assessee which shows the receipt of a sum, it is necessary for the assessee to establish, if asked what the source of that money is and to prove that it does not bear the nature of income. In the instant case, the assessee could not produce before the AO,…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8337/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kailash GaikwadFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Shah

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

…ted in its accounts, the A.O. was entitled to draw an inference that the receipt is of an assessable nature. In Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), the hon’ble apex court, after referring to its earlier decisions in Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. 5 Dy. CIT vs. Saraswati Developers CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC); and CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), held as under: ‘In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the Department to prove that it is w…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Plastograph India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 3556/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 68

…undisclosed income for the A.Y. 2009-10. The AO concluded that these facts clearly showed that the group is involved in introducing unaccounted income in the garb of Share Capital in their companies. 2.2. Accordingly, relying upon Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT 49 ITR 112 (SC); M/s Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi); Kamal Kishore vs CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155 (Raj.); CIT vs Divine Leasing & Finace Ltd. [2007] 158 Taxman 440 (Del.); C.Kant & Co. v CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (Cal.); and CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt.Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) addition of Rs.50 lakh was made holding that the assessee has failed to dis…

M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir -9(2), Mumbai

ITA 309/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) M/s. Kingpin Investment & Finance Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd Circle-9(2), बनाम/ Mandhana Manor-445, Mumbai. “C” Wing, Mogul Lane, Vs. Matunga(W), Mumbai-400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCH 7898H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1288,4447,1853 &1971/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) Dy. Commissio…

DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1971/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) M/s. Kingpin Investment & Finance Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd Circle-9(2), बनाम/ Mandhana Manor-445, Mumbai. “C” Wing, Mogul Lane, Vs. Matunga(W), Mumbai-400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCH 7898H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1288,4447,1853 &1971/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) Dy. Commissio…

ACIT - 9(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1853/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) M/s. Kingpin Investment & Finance Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd Circle-9(2), बनाम/ Mandhana Manor-445, Mumbai. “C” Wing, Mogul Lane, Vs. Matunga(W), Mumbai-400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCH 7898H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1288,4447,1853 &1971/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) Dy. Commissio…

M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir -9(2), Mumbai

ITA 1717/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) M/s. Kingpin Investment & Finance Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd Circle-9(2), बनाम/ Mandhana Manor-445, Mumbai. “C” Wing, Mogul Lane, Vs. Matunga(W), Mumbai-400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCH 7898H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1288,4447,1853 &1971/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) Dy. Commissio…

DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1288/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) M/s. Kingpin Investment & Finance Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd Circle-9(2), बनाम/ Mandhana Manor-445, Mumbai. “C” Wing, Mogul Lane, Vs. Matunga(W), Mumbai-400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCH 7898H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1288,4447,1853 &1971/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04) Dy. Commissio…

Sri. Suresh Kumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 1281/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…f Allahabad bench of ITAT in 84 ITD 289 (All. Trib) • If there is an entry in the account books of the assessee which shows the receipt of a sum, the initial burden is on assessee to explain the nature and source of such credit-Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112(SC). The assessee is required to establish proof of identity of his creditors, capacity of the creditor to advance money and genuineness of the transactions. In the instant case, the assessee has failed to explain satisfactorily the credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. Majority of the Page 4 of 9 creditors state…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…the nature of the receipt or to locate its source, so that, where not satisfactorily explained as to its nature and/or source, it could be deemed as income (refer: CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC)). In the view of the tribunal, this was a matter of fact, which had to be established by definite material/evidence, viz. the copy of the bank accounts, in view of the definite material with the Revenue (in the form of TIs), and which therefore would presumably be considered as having been given effect to. Then, again, even so, the addition i…

Shri Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. Dy.CIT.C.C.2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…the nature of the receipt or to locate its source, so that, where not satisfactorily explained as to its nature and/or source, it could be deemed as income (refer: CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC)). In the view of the tribunal, this was a matter of fact, which had to be established by definite material/evidence, viz. the copy of the bank accounts, in view of the definite material with the Revenue (in the form of TIs), and which therefore would presumably be considered as having been given effect to. Then, again, even so, the addition i…

Kantadevi Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2829/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…ired/relevant, duly informed of the applicable law/procedure. The law in the matter is again well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is…

Santlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2)

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2802/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…ired/relevant, duly informed of the applicable law/procedure. The law in the matter is again well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is…

DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Faisal Abbas, Pune

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6934/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri K. Gopal

Section 143(3)Section 68

…s a loan from DFL. Far from the same impugning the assessee’s case, however, it fortifies the Revenue’s stand in assessing the said credit in the hands of RHAK, the only beneficiary or the recipient of the impugned sum (refer: Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC)). We, therefore, though not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A), for the reasons afore-stated confirm his deletion of the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee, a mere name lender. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. प"रणामतः "नधा"रती क" अपील "वीकृत क" जाती है । Order pronounced in the open co…

Manish C Jogani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7344/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7344/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Manish C. Jogani, Huf Ito-16(2)(2), बनाम/ C/21, Shree Ganeshprasad Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sleater Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 8076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7345/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Sandeep C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalhs 2461 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7346/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Girish C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg 0062 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Champaklal D. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahj 8938 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : (A.Y. 2008-09) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2015 Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Four Appeals By Different Assessees, Agitating The Dismissal Of Their Appeals Contesting Their Respective Assessments U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 07.2.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Vide His Separate Orders Of Even Date (20.10.2014). The Issue/S Arising Being Common, The Appeals Were Posted For Hearing & Were Accordingly, Heard Together.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Smt. Bharati Singh

Section 143(3)

…ired/relevant, duly informed of the applicable law/procedure. The law in the matter is again well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is…