← 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

Shailesh K Patel-HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 68

proceedings paragraphs. To reiterate, the assessee we not named in the report and when the 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

Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

other sources was not based on evidence.” 23. 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

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Weldon Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1868/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. and Shri Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68A

shown that valuation was made on the fundamentally erroneous basis or apparent mistake is pointed out and demonstrated. Resting an additional onus of proof on the assessee, apart from tendering the valuation report to substantiate the report also, cannot be sustained. As for this proposition of law, we rely upon

Ganga Cotton & Allied Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 11(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ganga Cotton & Allied Vs. Ito Ward-11(3) Industries Ltd., New Delhi 7/2, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan Aaacg3976E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor. However, 11 this additional onus of proof of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company

Bestline Properties Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 3500/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 68

have appreciated that in the assessment U/s. 143(3) read with U/s. 147, the appellant company has fully discharged burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital received from the alleged bogus shareholders by establishing the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of transaction by banking

ITO, Ward-1, Narnaul vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Narnaul

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

ITA 944/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

creditors but also to prove the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transactions. On whom the onus of proof lies in a particular case is a question of law. But whether the onus has been discharged in a particular case is a question

ITO, Ward-1, Narnaul vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Narnaul

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

ITA 943/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

creditors but also to prove the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transactions. On whom the onus of proof lies in a particular case is a question of law. But whether the onus has been discharged in a particular case is a question

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Janpath Ventures Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 9015/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mittal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

writing are that (a) The CIT(A) has 6.1 clearly proceeded on misconception of facts and law while discharging the assessee from onus of proof; (b) the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that AO had given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to discharge onus placed upon the assessee under Section

M/S Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 374/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

company fail to give basic proofs about the genuineness of the transaction they had undertaken even after giving sufficient opportunities and therefore the onus of proof remained un-discharged on the part of the assessee company. It was stated by the AO that the Director denied to provide any concrete

Smt. Jyoti Bhalla, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 714/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kabmboj, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

onus for explaining her source. Although the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee to explain the source, however the said onus of proof is not a static one. The initial burden of proof to explain the source have duly been explained by the assessee by stating that

M/S Guru Awaas Pvt. Ltd., Kolakta vs. ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 227/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhisek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

March, 2019, where Hon’ble Lordship has clearly mentioned that mere transaction through banking channels will not help the appellant and onus of proof is there on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the addition of the Assessing Officer

Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Nilesh Haresh Vs. The Assistant Parwani, 501, Chumchum Commissioner Of Income Saraswati Road, Tax-22 (2) Santacruz West, Room No. 315, Piramal Mumbai – 400 064 Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Angpp1224L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanjay Parikh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 08.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Rs.1,62,91,466/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,62,91,466/- As Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22(2), Mumbai (Ao). 2. While Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of The Said Loss, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Had Not Made Out A Case As To How Such Huge Ltcg/Stcl Has Accrued To The Appellant From Shares Of The Company Named Global Infratech Ltd.

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 69C

proceedings paragraphs. To reiterate, the assessee we not named in the report and when the 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Bdr Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

ITA 2452/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 68Section 69A

least three subscribers out of four subscribers in the instant case 6.2.6 In the Assessment Order the A.O. has made observation that "Onus of proof: Prima facie onus is always on the Assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the Assessee. In land ... incorporated by Finance Act, 1964, into section 271 which had deleted the word "deliberately" in its sub-section 1(c), thereby shifting the onus of proof onto the assessee, rendering Anwar Ali‟s case (supra) ineffectual. Nevertheless, in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 141 it has been

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewallan Extn., Delhi vs. Bdr Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

ITA 2451/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 68Section 69A

least three subscribers out of four subscribers in the instant case 6.2.6 In the Assessment Order the A.O. has made observation that "Onus of proof: Prima facie onus is always on the Assessee to prove the cash credit entry found in the books of account of the Assessee. In land ... incorporated by Finance Act, 1964, into section 271 which had deleted the word "deliberately" in its sub-section 1(c), thereby shifting the onus of proof onto the assessee, rendering Anwar Ali‟s case (supra) ineffectual. Nevertheless, in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 141 it has been

ITO-13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

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

identity of the creditors, but also the capacity of the creditors to advance money, and establish the genuineness of the transactions. The initial onus of proof lies on the assessee. This Court in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT, (1992) 2 SCC 378, held that if the assessee fails to discharge

Sachin Kanodia, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

evidence placed on record by the AO. 5.2.2 With respect to the circumstantial evidence and in the matter related to the discharge of 'onus of proof and the relevance of surrounding circumstances of the case, the relevant observations and findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... result, appeal of the Assessee. is dismissed." 5.1 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 Vs. Durga Prasad More

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

identity of the creditors, but also the capacity of the creditors to advance money, and establish the genuineness of the transactions. The initial onus of proof lies on the assessee. This Court in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1992] 2 SCC 378, held that if the assessee fails to discharge

Pawan Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 789/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 136Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

145/3), no 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 ... after rejecting the books of account, no separate addition u/s 68 is called for even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proof in explaining the credit in its books. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act relating to peak

Pawan Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 788/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 136Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

145/3), no 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 ... after rejecting the books of account, no separate addition u/s 68 is called for even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proof in explaining the credit in its books. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act relating to peak

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1998/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

satisfactory then the sum is added to the total income of the person. Certain judicial pronouncements have created doubts about the onus of proof and the requirements of this section, particularly, in cases where the sum which is credited as share capital, share premium etc. Judicial pronouncements, while recognizing that ... through masquerade of investment in the share capital of a company needs to be prevented, have advised a balance to be maintained regarding onus of proof to be placed on the company. The Courts have drawn a distinction and emphasized that in case of private placement of shares the legal