← All Phrases

“onus of proof”

Judicial DoctrinesEvidenceEvidence362 judgments

The decision most relied on for onus of proof is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 696 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on onus of proof

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

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.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj
139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court
443
citing judgments

Tax authorities are entitled to examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the genuineness of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of manipulated penny stock, even if prima facie documents appear to support the transaction.

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT
264 ITR 254 · 2003 · High Court
340
citing judgments

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan
237 ITR 570 · 1999 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

An unsatisfactory explanation for an amount credited in the books does not automatically result in it being deemed as the assessee's income under Section 68. The initial onus is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

Judgments citing onus of proof

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-2, Chandigarh vs. M.R.S. Shri Prannath Parnami Education Society, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 253/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.253/Chd/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम M.R.S. Shri Prannath Income Tax, Exemptions, Parnami Education Society, Circle-2, 20Km Stone, Chandigarh Rajgarh Road, Vpo Choudhariwas Hisar 125001 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabam1046N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By :Sh. Kapil Goyal, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14.01.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 133(6)

undisclosed money could have been attributed. 8. Also, while rejecting the A.O.’s observations, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in Section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee, yet once the Assessee proves ... transaction by showing money in his books, either by account payee cheque, or by draft, or by filing other supporting documents, then the onus of proof would shift to the A.O. It is not a case where the A.O. was in possession of some information or material to establish that

Parlikar Cement, Kalyan vs. Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 1262/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Parlikar Cement Ward 3(2) 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Dafodil Apartment Agra Road, Vs. Lal Chowki, Kalyan (W), Road, Kalyan-421 301 Kalyan-421 301 Pan/Gir No. Aalfp 3539 Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv G. Brahme & Shri Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Shri H. M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv G. Brahme &For Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

matrix of the case, it is observed that the assessee has furnished the relevant details before the lower authorities, thereby discharging the initial onus of proof casted upon it as per the provisions of the Act. The lower authorities have merely rejected the same that some of the confirmations were

Shashank Rathi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2369/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Shashank Rathi Ito, International Taxation Ward C/O. Goel Anil & Co. Arihant Plaza 84, 4(1)(1) Room No. 1729, 17Th Floor, Walltax Road Park Tower, Chennai, Vs. Tamil Nadu-600 063 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri A. Suraj NaharFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

charges incurred by him at the time of the said purchase. We are of the considered view that the assessee has discharged the onus of proof casted upon him to explain the source of the investment 7 Shashank Rathi vs. ITO made by him, as per the provisions

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

identity of the creditors but also the capacity of the creditors to advance money, and establish the genuineness of those transaction. The initial onus of proof lies on the assessee. The decision in Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1977) 2 SCC 378 was referred to wherein ... satisfactory then the sum is added to the total income of the person. That certain judicial pronouncements have created doubts about the onus of proof and the requirements of Section 68, particularly in cases where sum is credited as share capital, share premium etc. That courts have drawn a distinction

Shree Rajput Sabha, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 311/JPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

normally amount to "business" unless an independent intention to carryon "business" in the incidental or ancillary activity is established. In such cases, the onus of proof of an independent intention to carry on "business" connected with or incidental or ancillary sales will rest on the department. Thus, if the main

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

itself prove the genuineness of the transactions. For all these reasons, it is held that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus of proof u/s 68 of the Act and hence the addition of Rs 1,95,000/- made by the A.O is confirmed. The Ground of Appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(2), Nagpur vs. Ajay Vishandas Kamnani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DemleFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

separate addition can be made on account of cash credit u/s.68, even though the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proof in explaining the amount shown in the books of account”. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of CIT vs. Aggarwal Engg

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Jet Infraventure Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 2337/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Gunjan H Kakkad
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by them in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the act etc, not allowed Cross Examination, an Appellant has discharge their onus of proof by Cross Examination, an Appellant has discharge their onus of proof by Cross Examination, an Appellant has discharge their onus of proof by proving

Jet Infraventure Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1020/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gunjan H KakkadFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by them in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the act etc, not allowed Cross Examination, an Appellant has discharge their onus of proof by proving Identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor and the genunineness of the transaction in question with explained the need

Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 16/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

other sources was not based on evidence.” 12. On the issue of circumstantial evidence and in the matters related to the discharge of ‘onus of proof’ and the relevance of surrounding circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More

Shailesh S. Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 15/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

other sources was not based on evidence.” 12. On the issue of circumstantial evidence and in the matters related to the discharge of ‘onus of proof’ and the relevance of surrounding circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More

Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

ITA 14/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deeapk Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

other sources was not based on evidence.” 12. On the issue of circumstantial evidence and in the matters related to the discharge of ‘onus of proof’ and the relevance of surrounding circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More

Kiran Ashok Desai, Mumbai vs. The PCIT Mumbai-19, Mumbai

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed and order passed by the Ld

ITA 1794/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalkiran Ashok Desai, D-3, Triveni Building, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Maharashtra 400 066 Pan: Aabpd6275H ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit R. No. 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

view of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana with respect to the deeming provision of section 50C of the Act is that onus of proof lies on the Department/Revenue to bring on record any evidence to the effect that higher amount of sale consideration had passed on to the seller

Mayur Vasant Patel, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 3136/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mayur Vasant Patel, The Acit Circle (27)(2), 11, Gangotri Chs Ltd., It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Near Maneklal Estate, Vs. Commercial Complex, Ghatkopar (W), Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Azcpp 4925 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Madhavi Panchal

Explanation, the assessee in the instant case, has the purpose of Explanation, the assessee in the instant case, has failed to discharge his onus of proof. failed to discharge his onus of proof. The aforesaid Explanation was The aforesaid Explanation was amended by Finance Act, 1964 with effect from

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

were legal tender at the relevant time. Thus, the so-called findings of fact by the Tribunal were based upon placing a wrong onus of proof and applying not the correct principles of law governing such cases. On the facts, no tangible material had been brought on the record

Atul Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 2023/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

report and when the Page | 18 Atul Shamji Bharani. ITA no.2022/Mum./2023, ITA no.2023/Mum./2023 assessee makes the claim for exemption the onus of proof is on the assessee to prove the genuinity. Unfortunately, the assessees have been harping upon the transactions done by them and by relying upon