“Income-tax Officer”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(25) / Section 1175,006 judgments

The decision most relied on for Income-tax Officer is CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), cited in 1,162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Income-tax Officer

CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,162

citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court

1,061

citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court

581

citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court

524

citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate

53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court

359

citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.

384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court

274

citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court

266

citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen

56 ITR 198 · 1965 · Supreme Court

230

citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

omitted. CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, (171 ITR 698) (All.) "6. There is no finding by the Commissioner that the Income-tax Officer reached an erroneous conclusion and that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion would have been different. The orders of the Income ... prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was for the Commissioner to point out as to what error was committed by the Income-tax Officer in having reached the conclusion that the income of the trust was exempt in its hands and was assessable only in the hands

Prabhat Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patnsanstha Maryadit Tadwadi, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 3, Panvel

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

ITA 1433/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Vishal Makawane

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 44ASection 44BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-3, Panvel (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in rejecting the application under section 154 and not allowing deduction

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Sanjay Chowdary Gaddipati, Hyderabad

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

extent of being invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house was not taxable under Section 54 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, took the view that the assessee had started construction of this house prior to the sale of the Golf Link house. He, therefore, rejected ... alternative contention too of the assessee. 5. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had agreed with the Income-tax Officer. 6. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal reproducing Section 54 in its order found as follows: "A perusal of the above provision will show that it does not lay down

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Udupi, Uupi vs. Kambadakone Rytara Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd, Udupi

ITA 1930/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 194A(3)Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

derived from working or circulating capital.” 10.9 Further, the Apex Court in the case of Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Reported in (SC) :(2001) 251 ITR 522 had again reiterated by relying on its own judgment delivered in the case of Karnataka State ... 18/2015 dated 02/11/2015. 10.11 Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. Income-tax officer Ward-V, Tumkur reported in [2015] 230 Taxman 309 had also held as under- “7, The word ‘attributable’ used in the said section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi vs. Kambadakone Rytara Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd, Uppunda

ITA 1929/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh R Uppin, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA Nos.1929 & 1930/Bang/2024 KambadakoneRytaraSevaSahakariSangha Ltd., Uppunda IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

W G Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITAs No

ITA 1699/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss Padmavathy. S()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Steel Industries vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(5), Plot No.18, Krishna Kunj, Sector-28, Mumbai Vashi, Navi MumbAI-400 703 Income-tax Office, Vashi Railway PAN: AAAFW9987E Station Building Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Satish Jain Department represented by Shri Swapnil Choudhary

W G Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITAs No

ITA 1697/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss Padmavathy. S()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Mrs. Reeta Mahesh Dave, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5063/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Reeta Mahesh Dave Income-Tax Officer Shop No. 82, 4Th Lane, Ward 23(3)(6), Mangaldas Market, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 400002. Mumbai. Pan: Aahpd2775J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bhavesh Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30/07/2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Has Made The Addition Of Rs. 14,80,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment U/S. 69 Of The Act. The Assessee Being Aggrieved Challenged The Said Addition Before The Ld. Commissioner Who By Specifically Holding ‘That During The Appellate Proceeding The Appellant Filed A Confirmation From Riddhi Siddhi Recyclers As Additional Evidence, But Failed To Provide Explanation Against The Contention Of The Ld. Ao That How Any Investor Can Invest In 2 Mrs. Reeta Mahesh Dave Off Market Mode In A Company Who Does Not Have A Sound Financial Standing. The Appellant Also Did Not File The Basic Documents Such As 1. Share Application 2. Number Of Shares Allotted & Photocopy Of The Share Certificate 3. Copy Of Bank Statement With Cheque Number & Bank, On Which The Cheque Was Drawn. In The Absence Of Above Basic Documents, The Genuineness Of So Called Investment Could Not Be Established’ Ultimately Affirmed The Aforesaid Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Reeta Mahesh Dave Income-Tax Officer Shop No. 82, 4th Lane, Ward 23(3)(6), Mangaldas Market, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 400002. Mumbai. PAN: AAHPD2775J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee

Ms. Allied Trade Links, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-2, Guwahati

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee. The assessee shall be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim. 11. Further, in the case of Jagjit Singh v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 149 taxmann.com 48 (Amritsar - Trib.), it has been held as under: 5. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available

M/S. Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

Assessing Officer shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the 6[Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the 7[Joint Commissioner] under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the 7[Joint Commissioner] in exercise

Kailash Murlidhar Purohit, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 504/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Kailash Murlidhar Assessment Unit Income Purohit Tax Department, 25, Seema Vaibhav CHS, Near Vs. Income-tax Officer, St. Thomas School, Thangewadi Ward-3(2), Mumbai Kalyan (W), Mumbai- 421301 Rani Mansion, Murbad, PAN: AKSPP9231E Kalyan-421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee

Sagar Tech Plaza A Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Bandra Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2687/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Virat Doshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/s. Sagar Tech Plaza A Income-tax Officer, Premises Co-op Society Ltd Mum-W-(401)(94) Vs. Ground Floor, Sakinaka Andheri Kautilya Bhavan, Kurla Road, Mumbai- 400072 Mumbai-400051 PAN: AAEAS5654D

Sagar Tech Plaza A Premises Co Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Bandra Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2686/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Virat Doshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Niraj Shankarlal Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1058/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Davendra Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Niraj Shankarlal Income-tax Officer, Bhanushali Ward- 24(3)(2), Mumbai Krishna Building, Plot No.3, Room 616, Piramal Vs. Tarun Bharat Society, Sahar Chambers, Lalbaug, Road,Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai

Shree Rajlaxmi Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6402/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2023-24 M/s. Shree Rajlaxmi Co- Income-tax Officer, operative Housing Society Ward- 42(1)(5), Mumbai Limited, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai Ground Floor, Padmanagar, CTS Vs. No. 391,392 and 393, Sub Plot

Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, Na vs. Ari, Vs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 122/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A.L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical He Aring) Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, The Pr. Cit – 1, Vs. 2622, Sarvoday Park, Khundh Rajkot Khundh, Chikhli, Navsari - 396521 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp0527F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 23/07/2024 & Refix For Clarification On 24.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order

St. Gregorios Education and Medical Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Exemtion, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1432/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

under section 139(4) - Held, yes [Paras 12 & 13][In favour of assessee] [2019] 111 taxmann.com 272 (Mumbai - Trib.) Shree Dadar Jain v. Income-tax Officer (E), Mumbai Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Charitable or religious trust - Exemption of income from

Shri Vipulbhai Yogeshkumar Teli, Chalala Village, Dist. Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3(1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 224/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Pragnesh Jagasheth, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 148Section 250Section 68

RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 224/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vs. VipulbhaiYogeshbhai Teli Income-tax officer, Ward- Prop. Tha. Yogeshkumar 3(1)(4), Harjivandas, Ganga Bhuvan, Keriya Road, Station Road, Chalala-365630 Amreli-365560 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACHPT4257B (Assessee ... under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are not correct or complete, the Income-tax Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best of his judgment. I note that assessee under consideration, is small assessee

Shri Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, Anjar Kutch vs. The Addl. CIT, NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 220/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 269Section 269SSection 270ASection 69A

acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 264/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon'Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon'Ble Accountant, Member

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

explained the entries stating that the letter "W" put against payment is "White" while the letter "B" were put against payment is "Black". Income-tax officer made additions on the basis of entries as in the seized material alleging that these payments were outside the books of accounts and also ... relied upon the statements made by these two persons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the additions made by the Income-tax Officer. 9.5.1. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the entire evidence merely created suspicion and it did not take the place of proof