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)

Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68

…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. 373/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Shobha Tomar DCIT, Vs. B-4, Govind Marg, Adarsh C.C.1, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALPT 4876 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G. M. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anoop Singh, Ad…

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 45/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…osit during demonetization is the cash received from land sold by her almost 19 months before the date of deposit of cash in the bank account is not acceptable. Accordingly relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT 49 ITR 112 the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Submission:- 1. There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is regularly maintaining the cash book and the same was also found and seized during the course of search. As per the cash book the cash balance as on 31.10.2016 was Rs.16,25,348/- (PB 16) out of which cash of Rs.16,05,000/- was deposited in…

Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr.D.R

Section 250

…The matter, with like directions, is restored to the file of the AO, making it clear that the burden of proof is on the assessee, even as the Revenue cannot, merely by adopting, convert good evidence to no evidence (Sreelekha Banerjee And Others v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC)). We decide accordingly. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes.” 6.1 In view of the above order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2013-14, which is on the very same issue, we find no reason to take a different view and, Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad…

Dskn Jewellers, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(3), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1051/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmadskn Jewellers Vs. Ito C/O. Mr. Samar Kapoor, Adv. Ward – 46(3) Chamber No.E-523, Karkardooma New Delhi Court, Delhi-32 Pan No. Aahfd 2162 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 27Section 271(1)(b)

…lant. CIT(A) has thus made no error in confirming the addition by relying to the settled proposition of law in Independent Media (P.) Ltd 210 TAXMAN 14 (Delhi)(2012) that came up and Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 & Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. Vs CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112, that where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year it may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year if the explanation offered by assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. We find no error in findings. The gro…

Dr. C Usha, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward-3, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmidr. C. Usha Income Tax Officer Modern Hospital Ward -3, Palakkad Guruvayur Road, Koottanad Vs. Palakkad 679533 [Pan:Aafpu8363H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…The matter, with like directions, is restored to the file of the AO, making it clear that the burden of proof is on the assessee, even as the Revenue cannot, acting unreasonably, convert good evidence to no evidence (Sreelekha Banerjee And Others v.CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC)). We decide accordingly. 8 Dr. C. UshaModern Hospital v. Income Tax Officer 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on March 15, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Dr. Seethalakshmi) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: March 15, 20…

Aakruti Ketan Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-35(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…used against the assessee must be quashed. It was held that the assessee must be furnished with the copies of such material and should be given an opportunity to explain his case and rebut the findings of the Income Tax Department. In P. Shreelekha Bannerjee, 49 ITR 112 (SC), the court held that the enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice and all the material for and against the assessee must be shown to him and an opportunity must be given to him to rebutt the findings and to present his case. The Madras High Court in V. Datchinanurthy and another, 149 ITR 341 confirmed the abov…

Shri Balkrishna Gajanan Thopte, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

ITA 3380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s failed to satisfy the test of preponderance of human probabilities. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decision of the Hon'ble Courts viz, a) A Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807(SC) b) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112(SC) c) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) e) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674(SC) f) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) It needs to be appreciated that what is essentially under cloud, and being seriously doubted as to the genuineness, is the gain stated to…