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

Incme Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Swarna Sukh, Bhopal

ITA 691/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

….3,43,59,000/- during the demonetization, a huge amount which has gone unexplained fully. Reliance was once again placed on judgments of Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal [ 1995 AIR 2019 ] Durga Prasad More case (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sreelekha case (1963) 49 ITR 112. It was stated that in the fiscal statute there is no requirement of law to make out a water tight case which is required in the criminal law. Herein the circumstances and trends do not support the assessee's case, what is apparent is not real. The arrangement is sham and make belief exercise. 4. Observations,findings & conclusions. 4.1 We now h…

Luminant Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 68

…807 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. vs. CIT [1963] 49 Banerjee & Ors. vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. ITR 112 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); and CIT vs. P Mohanakala & Ors. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), most of which have been relied upon by [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), most of which hav…

Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 560/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dharnidharka, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal cuke The DCIT, V. 137, Radha Damodar Ki Gali, Chaura Central Circle-1, Jaipur. Rasta, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACPPC5384G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Manish Dharnidharka, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs…

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and at the same time, the cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 4973/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi. B-236, Derawal Nagar, Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) Co No.26/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4973/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Akash Deep Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-236, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Ms. Kirti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 16.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…ions and makes payments through proper banking channels, the failure of the recipients to respond to departmental notices cannot be a valid ground to treat the transaction as bogus. Relevant findings are extracted as under: In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112, this court held that if there was an entry in the account books of the assessee which showed the receipt of a sum on conversion of high denomination notes tendered for conversion by the assessee himself, it is necessary for the assessee to establish, if asked, what the source of that money was and to prove that it was not income. The Department w…

Lalit R Jagawat HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 634/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 634/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Lalit R Jagawat Huf V/S. Dcit, 23(2), 80B Patwa Chawl, Room बिाम Mantru Mandir, Room No. No. 41, 3Rd Floor, Sheikh 114, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Momon Street, Zaveri Mumbai-400007 Bazar, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aachj7165D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya Rai

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…AO, the AO cannot make the addition of the same amount again under section 68 of the Act, as it amounts to double addition of the same income. 9. We place reliance upon the following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: i. Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC): The Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. ii. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC): the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in suspicions, coniectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of the…

Accrecent Way Marketing (P) Ltd., Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

ITA 358/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 68

…ded about burden of proof would highlight the proposition that the initiation of the enquiry should be from the side of the assessing officer, and only thereafter the burden would shift to the assessee (emphasis added): 1. In Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC), this Court held that if there was an entry in the account books of the assessee which showed the receipt of a sum on conversion of high denomination notes tendered for conversion by the assessee himself, it is necessary for the assessee to establish, if asked, what the source of that money was and to prove that it was not income. 2. In Commi…

Ashok Bricks Industries Private Limited, Belpahar R S vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Rourkela Circle

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

ITA 182/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…refore, considering the non-responsive nature of the assessee, the valuation report was not considered for adjudication of the appeal. Further, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC), Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 838 (SC), Sumati Dayal vs CIT (1995) 50 Taxman 89 (SC), CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 161 Taxman 169 (SC) and other cases and the decision of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gau), wherein it has b…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…n the bank 2 CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar The case does not [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), A. pertain to deposits in the Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT bank [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). Kailash Chand Maheshwari vs. DCIT 3 Shreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT It pertains to Income 49 ITR 112 Tax Act, 1922 and relates to high denomination notes. 4 Renu T Tharani vs Dy The case does not Commissioner of Income Tax pertain to deposits in the in ITA No. 2333/Mum/2018 bank. 5 Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v. The case does not Additional Commissioner of pertain to deposits in the Income-tax [2022] 136 bank. It is a case of taxmann.com 70 recove…

Zeenathunnisa, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3004/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Dr.I. Roopa, Addl.CIT
Section 69

…e/probable from prudent persons 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 Zeenathunnisa :: 6 :: 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”. 7. The assessee…

M/S. Greens Farm Tech Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1835/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT

…dditionally, the AO dismissed the existence of standing crops without properly examining the lease agreement or summoning Ms. G.C. Ramya for clarification. 7. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sreelakha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963), 49 ITR 112 (SC), arguing that since the income was recorded in the books of account, there was no basis for treating it as undisclosed. The assessee maintained that the AO should have verified whether the disclosed credits corresponded to the stated source rather than rejecting the claim outrightly. Furthermore, it asserted that the AO failed to quote any sp…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

…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…

Deputy Commissoenr of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

…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…

Ayyan Fire Works Factory Pvt. Ltd., Sivakasi vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2363/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy
Section 68

…able from a prudent persons point of view, then, it cannot 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". In the present case, the assessee has…

Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-1(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

ITA 926/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.926/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani, Vs. The Acit, 1009/10, Ambaji Market, Near Kamela Circle – 1(2), Darwaja, Salabatpura, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afspm7945K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

…not possible to analyse the pattern of cash collection deposits in FY.2016-17 as compared to the preceding years also. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and Others vs. CIT, Bihar & Orissa, reported in 1964 AIR 697, dated 27.03.1963, 49 ITR 112 (SC) and held that the source of money not having been satisfactorily proved, the Department was justified in holding it to be assessable income of the assessee from some undisclosed source. The appellant has not discharged his primary onus to explain satisfactorily with supporting ITA No.926/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani eviden…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…from the Nirav & Co. was properly recorded in the books of account of the assessee firm and there is no question of applicability of Section 69 of the Act. 13.5 The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112 and submitted that the department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. He also relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the additions were deleted as they were made on basis of the surmises and conjecture: (i) Umacharan Shaw & Bros, vs. CIT, [1973] 37 ITR 271 (SC)…

Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…from the Nirav & Co. was properly recorded in the books of account of the assessee firm and there is no question of applicability of Section 69 of the Act. 13.5 The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112 and submitted that the department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. He also relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the additions were deleted as they were made on basis of the surmises and conjecture: (i) Umacharan Shaw & Bros, vs. CIT, [1973] 37 ITR 271 (SC)…

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

…14 ITR 801 (SC) (ii) Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd 154 ITR 148 (SC) (iv) Asst. CIT V. Som Nath Mani (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) (vi) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (viii) CIT V. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala & Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) 2.40 The Ld. AO has recorded as under in the assessment order dated 31/12/2016: After going through the whole gamut of Purchase and Sale of Shares, it can safely be understood…

Sony Serpent Eggs Factory, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward-3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2337/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 69A

…robable from a prudent person’s point of view, then, it cannot 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”. In the present case, the assessee has not…

Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…k on 15-11-2016 and further Rs. 1,54,00,000 on 21-11-2016. The appellant has not furnished explanation and the explanation furnished by the appellant fails in terms of ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112. This time taken by the appellant in depositing the cash in the bank account further fortifies the view that the accounted and bonafide cash was not actually available as on the date of announcement of demonetisation. The appellant did not produce the complete books of accounts during assessment proceedings and the same were also not been produced…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 458/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ction of any unaccounted purchases by the appellant. There are a number of judgements which say that it is trite law that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of a legal proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) has held that "The Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby held that the invoice dates by default can not be treated as delivery dates. No inquiry based evidence has been brought on record in the assessment order.…