“onus of proof”

Judicial DoctrinesEvidenceEvidence362 judgments

SHILPA SHETTY KUNDRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 996/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv. & RaviFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR. D.R.)

statement of her husband. Therefore, the AO has rightly relied on the case laws and from the decisions, it is clear that primary onus of proof lies on the Assessee, as she has made claim of gift received in her return of income. In view of the facts and judicial

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.\"\n\n5.1 On the Issue of circumstantial evidence and in the matters related to the\ndischarge of 'onus of proof" and the relevance of surrounding circumstances\nof the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of CIT v. Purga Prasad\nMore ... raised by assessee are dismissed.\"\n\n17. Further, on the Issue of circumstantial evidence and in the matters related\nto the discharge of 'onus of proof and the relevance of surrounding\ncircumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga\nPrasad More

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

follows "I propose a series of measures to deter the generation and use of unaccounted money. To this end, I propose— **** * Increasing the onus of proof on closely held companies for funds received from shareholders as well as taxing share premium in excess of fair market value. * Taxing of unexplained

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/GTY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sanjay Jha, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 801ESection 801E(3)Section 801E(4)Section 801E(5)Section 801E(6)Section 80I

filed a single document or clarification to rebut the detailed finding of the AO. The assessee has completely failed to discharge the onus of proof that lay upon it, specially when claiming a large deduction under a specific incentive provision like section 80IE. The silence and inaction of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 308/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then onus of proof would shift to revenue and just because creditors/share applicants could not be found at address given, it would not give revenue right to invoke

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

SEVEN ENERGIES ODISHA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1518/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1518/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Seven Energies Odisha Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aatcs5759E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 07/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 18/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 69

same are not considered. The learned CIT (Appeals)/NFAC erred in upholding the addition under Section 69 of the Act by shifting the onus of proof onto the Appellant without the Assessing Officer having discharged the initial burden of establishing that the investments were indeed not recorded in the books

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH,BPCL STAFF COLONY vs. ITO/DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MUMBAI, INCOME TAX BUILDING

ITA 8949/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

legalize injustice on technical\ngrounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and\nis expected to do so.\" (p. 229)\n5. Onus of Proof\n5.1 The onus of proving which lies on the appellant/application\nas clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the\nHighest Courts

ACIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TRISHUL REALTY INFRA LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the COs filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

ITA 7649/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

bringing new evidence that indicate the transactions undertaken by the assessee are non-genuine. Thus, the section deals with an equilibrium of onus of proof and must be viewed to evaluate as to whether the evidences brought by the assessee or AD weigh more and accordingly in whose favour

SHRI RAGHUBHAI VIRABHAI BHARWAD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 237/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271BSection 69

Dipakbhai and/or Santoshkumar Balvantsingh and/or Mahavirprasad Sumerchand and/or Laljibhai Mangubhai. The revenue has not taxed consideration paid by them in their cases. The onus of proof lies squarely on the Revenue to establish that the assessee actually purchased the property, actually sold it, received consideration, and retained profit. None

SHRI RAGHUBHAI VIRABHAI BHARWAD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 236/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271BSection 69

NEERAJ JAISWAL AND OTHERS,BAREILLY vs. ACIT-1, BAREILLY

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 & ( S.A. No.08/Lkw/2025) In Ita. No.33/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year 2020-21 Neeraj Jaiswal & Others Vs. The Acit-1 Green Park, Bareilly-243001. ‘C.R. Building’, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Aaaan4041K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 68

showing money in his books either by way of account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus of proof would shift to the revenue. It was also held that just because creditor/share applicant could not be found at address given, it would not give

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KAKINADA vs. SUDHA AGRO OIL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, G.RAGAMPETA

ITA 518/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

nits behalf against the purchases made by it from the assessee during the\nA.Y. 2015-16. Since the assessee has not discharged the onus of proof\nconclusively, the evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. AO were\ndisregarded and an addition was made by the Ld. AO while concluding

HEMANT KUMAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. KASTURI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3926/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, R. No. 316A, 3Rd Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बिाम Vs. Kasturi Jewellers P. Ltd., Gg-1/140A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aacck-7027-J

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Atul Puri, Chartered Accountant

Section 115BSection 139ASection 68

addition under section 68 was justified and based on cogent material evidence and analysis. • The assessee completely failed to discharge onus of proof regarding the source, nature, and genuineness of cash credits-particularly as to customer identity and capacity. • Revised VAT returns, PAN avoidance, clustering of cash sales below

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE vs. MAHESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6242/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer Vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal 19/176 Near Usha Mata Mandir Old Rohtak Road , North West Delhi 110035 Pan No. Adupa7276 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 999/2010 ( Delhi), it was decided- “it is settled law that in revenue matters, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though the initial burden of proof lies on assessee yet when it is files purchase bills and affidavits, the onus shifts

ITO, WARD-30(5), DELHI vs. RAGHAV GOEL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department of revenue is dismissed and

ITA 734/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarito Ward 30(5) Vs. Raghav Goel Room No. 1210, 12Th C-156, East Of Kailash Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Delhi – 110065 Centre, J.L. Marg Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aixpg7355H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

opportunities during assessment proceedings failed to submit satisfactory reply regarding source of cash deposit during demonetization period. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof. 7. Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee submitted that the accounts book records, the sales invoices/ bills, cash book for the entire accounting period

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SINGHANIA ALU FOIL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2743/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

well as the genuineness of the transaction. All the three ingredients are cumulative and not exclusive. (vi) In matters regarding cash credit the onus of proof is not a static one. As per the provisions of the section the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee. Amount appearing ... lender can be established by attending circumstances. Once the assessee produces evidences about identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the lender onus of proof shifts to the Revenue. 7.6 In the light of aforesaid legal principals, I find that in the instant case the appellant has been able to discharge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALYAN vs. MEGHDOOT ENTERPRISES, BHIWANDI

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

ITA 1946/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Meghdoot Enterprises, Tax, Parasnath Complex, Income Tax Office, Mankoli Road, Anjur Phata, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Vs. Bhiwandi, Khadakpada, Maharashtra – 421302 Kalyan West, Maharashtra - 421301 Pan No.Aapfm1640M (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 69C

evident that the assessee has failed to furnish all documentary evidences in support of its claim thereby failing to discharge its initial onus of proof casted upon the assessee by the provisions of the Act, neither before 3 M/s. Meghdoot Enterprises the lower authorities nor before us. Pertinently, except

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI vs. NATARAJAN, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2660/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 2661 & 2660 Chny 2024 िनधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2019-20

For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 292CSection 69

beyond the statements and documents obtained during the search proceedings. In ITO v. K.P. Varghese, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the onus of proof lies on the department to demonstrate that the statutory conditions necessary for levy of penalty are satisfied. This ruling supports the argument that

VIJAY GULABRAO SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1453/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

prior to demonetization period and cash deposits made during the demonetization period” and further observed that “assessee has grossly failed to discharge the onus of proof with regard to genuineness of cash deposits made in the 3 ITA No.1453/PUN/2025, AY 2017-18 bank account during demonetization period

Showing 1–20 of 362 · Page 1 of 19

...