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)

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 115/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…set-aside and the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 may kindly be restored. 12.1 In addition the ld. DR appearing for revenue also submitted compilation of following case law(s):- M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Kapoor 6 [2019] 106 taxmann.com 128 (SC)…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 114/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…set-aside and the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 may kindly be restored. 12.1 In addition the ld. DR appearing for revenue also submitted compilation of following case law(s):- M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Kapoor 6 [2019] 106 taxmann.com 128 (SC)…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 113/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…set-aside and the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 may kindly be restored. 12.1 In addition the ld. DR appearing for revenue also submitted compilation of following case law(s):- M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Kapoor 6 [2019] 106 taxmann.com 128 (SC)…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 112/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…may be mentioned that the search was conducted on 28.07.2016 i.c. prior to the date of demonetization and thus, where was the question of unearthing such evidences during the course of search on 28.07.2016. 2.2 In the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was the addition made by the AO on account of conversion of high denomination notes, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Court that: “It seems to us that the correct approach to questions of this kind in this. If there is an entry in the account books of the assessee which shows the receipt of…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 111/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…is case for A.Y 2017-18 has been given separately.” 9.2 In addition ld. DR representing the revenue submitted compilation of case law(s) in support of the contentions so raised, which is reproduced as under:- S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Ka…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 110/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…is case for A.Y 2017-18 has been given separately.” 9.2 In addition ld. DR representing the revenue submitted compilation of case law(s) in support of the contentions so raised, which is reproduced as under:- S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Ka…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 109/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…is case for A.Y 2017-18 has been given separately.” 9.2 In addition ld. DR representing the revenue submitted compilation of case law(s) in support of the contentions so raised, which is reproduced as under:- S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Ka…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 108/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…is case for A.Y 2017-18 has been given separately.” 9.2 In addition ld. DR representing the revenue submitted compilation of case law(s) in support of the contentions so raised, which is reproduced as under:- S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Ka…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 107/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…is case for A.Y 2017-18 has been given separately.” 9.2 In addition ld. DR representing the revenue submitted compilation of case law(s) in support of the contentions so raised, which is reproduced as under:- S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Ka…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 106/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…is case for A.Y 2017-18 has been given separately.” 9.2 In addition ld. DR representing the revenue submitted compilation of case law(s) in support of the contentions so raised, which is reproduced as under:- S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Sreelekh Banerjee vs. CIT 1-10 2 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds vs. CIT 11-12 3 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) 13-14 4 [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO 15-20 5 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 513 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ajay 21-29 Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT Ka…

Madhusudhan Hirlal Malu, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cricle 1(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed for STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 295/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.295/Pun/2022 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Madhusudhan Hiralal Malu, 60, Nana Peth, Near Doke Talim, Pune – 411 002 Pan : Aawpm9095K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) in an appeal, however the Ld. FAA not appreciating the time gap between huge cash withdrawals and its subsequent deposits in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in ‘Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. Vs CIT’ reported in 49 ITR 112 (SC), confirmed the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 3. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR adverting to page 6-16 of paper book containing 121 pages, has reiterated all submissions made before the tax authorities to support appellant’s claim of having pre- ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 Madhusudhan Hiralal Malu ITA No.295/PUN/2022 AY: 2014-15 held sufficie…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

ITA 2665/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

…Hon'ble offered by assessee found to be unsatisfactory. The Hon'ble offered by assessee found to be unsatisfactory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has h Supreme Court has held in the case of Shreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT eld in the case of Shreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [49 ITR 112(SC)) that addition for unexplained cash credit is [49 ITR 112(SC)) that addition for unexplained cash credit is [49 ITR 112(SC)) that addition for unexplained cash credit is justified simply if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the justified simply if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the justified simply if the assessee fa…

Rajalakshmi Agencies, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 246/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajalakshmi Agencies Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7(2) Pan: Aamfr4103R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupesh Kumar Dand, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,07,99,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Being Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupesh Kumar Dand, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, DR

Section 143(2)Section 69A

…ation given by the assessee is not verifiable. He, therefore, treated the deposit of Rs.1,07,99,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee (1963) 49 ITR 112 (S.C). 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A)-NFAC confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “8. I have carefully considered the action of the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the appellant. I have noted that the cash was deposited during the demonetization Page 2 of 6 ITA No 246 of 2022 Rajalakshmi Agencies…

Super Iron Foundry, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 36, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 270/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)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…

Atul Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

ITA 1605/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.1605/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Atul Modi, v. ACIT, Circle-29(1), 22, Lower Ground Floor, New Delhi. Siri Fort Road, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AMDPM1864F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 04 01 2023 Date of pronouncement: 04 01 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-X…

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Tiruchirapalli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 172/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…e not carried out any further enquiry or investigation by the AO, he made addition just on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. This issue has been considered by various courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee vs. CIT, [1953] 49 ITR 112 held that if the explanation given by the assessee shows that the receipt was not of an income nature, the Department cannot act unreasonably and reject the explanation to hold that it was income in case, the Department do not conduct further enquiry or investigation. But, in case, the explanation is unconvincing then the same should deserve to be…

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 171/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…e not carried out any further enquiry or investigation by the AO, he made addition just on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. This issue has been considered by various courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee vs. CIT, [1953] 49 ITR 112 held that if the explanation given by the assessee shows that the receipt was not of an income nature, the Department cannot act unreasonably and reject the explanation to hold that it was income in case, the Department do not conduct further enquiry or investigation. But, in case, the explanation is unconvincing then the same should deserve to be…

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 170/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…e not carried out any further enquiry or investigation by the AO, he made addition just on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. This issue has been considered by various courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee vs. CIT, [1953] 49 ITR 112 held that if the explanation given by the assessee shows that the receipt was not of an income nature, the Department cannot act unreasonably and reject the explanation to hold that it was income in case, the Department do not conduct further enquiry or investigation. But, in case, the explanation is unconvincing then the same should deserve to be…

Rupesh Vyas, Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…801 (S C); (ii) Durga Prasad More - 82ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. - 154 ITR 148 (SC), (iv) Asst. CIT u. Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar a. CIT· (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & othrs. o. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) . (vi) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif u. CIT (1963) 50 ITR l(SC) viii) CIT vs. Biju Patnaik - (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala &Others - (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Page 7 of 21 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2014-15 7.1. In the decision delivered on 27.3.2015, the Hon'ble ITAT, E-Bench, Mumbai has allowed the Revenue appea…

Rupesh Vyas, Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…801 (S C); (ii) Durga Prasad More - 82ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. - 154 ITR 148 (SC), (iv) Asst. CIT u. Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar a. CIT· (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & othrs. o. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) . (vi) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif u. CIT (1963) 50 ITR l(SC) viii) CIT vs. Biju Patnaik - (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala &Others - (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Page 7 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2015-16 7.1. In the decision delivered on 27.3.2015, the Hon'ble ITAT, E-Bench, Mumbai has allowed the Revenue appea…

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT

What is Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Madhusudhan Hirlal Malu, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cricle 1(1), Pune

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

Rajalakshmi Agencies, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

Super Iron Foundry, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 36, Kolkata

Atul Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Tiruchirapalli

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

Rupesh Vyas, Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

Rupesh Vyas, Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore