← 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

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 78/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Amol B. Kirtane
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 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. Fifthly, the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Private Limited, (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC), has stated that

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 56/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi &
Section 132Section 132(4)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. Fifthly, the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Private Limited, (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC), has stated that

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

prove the nature of credit on the recipient i.e. the assessee. There is a marked distinction 12 A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering between ‘onus of proof’ and ‘burden of proof’. The ‘burden of proof’ lies on a person who has to prove a fact initially and if he fails ... assessee discharges its obligation and prove the nature & source of the credit entries to AO’s satisfaction, then the ‘onus of proof’ shifts. However, for the purposes of Section 68 of the Act, the ‘burden to proof’ begins with the assessee and once the assessee submits evidence in support

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

prove the nature of credit on the recipient i.e. the assessee. There is a marked distinction 12 A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering between ‘onus of proof’ and ‘burden of proof’. The ‘burden of proof’ lies on a person who has to prove a fact initially and if he fails ... assessee discharges its obligation and prove the nature & source of the credit entries to AO’s satisfaction, then the ‘onus of proof’ shifts. However, for the purposes of Section 68 of the Act, the ‘burden to proof’ begins with the assessee and once the assessee submits evidence in support

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

purpose of meeting working capital requirements, which was also evident from the loan agreements. 13.3 The learned AO erred in not discharged the onus of proof, in relation to his contention that there is nexus of investments with the borrowed funds. Accordingly. the adjustment made by the learned ... purpose of meeting working capital requirements, which was also evident from the loan agreements. . 3.3. The learned AO erred in not discharged the onus of proof, in relation to his contention that there is nexus between investments and borrowed funds Accordingly, the adjustment 15 IT(TP)A Nos.764 /Bang/2017

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 764/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

purpose of meeting working capital requirements, which was also evident from the loan agreements. 13.3 The learned AO erred in not discharged the onus of proof, in relation to his contention that there is nexus of investments with the borrowed funds. Accordingly. the adjustment made by the learned ... purpose of meeting working capital requirements, which was also evident from the loan agreements. . 3.3. The learned AO erred in not discharged the onus of proof, in relation to his contention that there is nexus between investments and borrowed funds Accordingly, the adjustment 15 IT(TP)A Nos.764 /Bang/2017

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

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. if above referred principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration, it becomes absolutely clear that

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITAT (Mumbai) in the case of ITO vs Anant Shelters (p) Ltd. [2012] 051 SOT 0234 that in matters regarding cash credit the onus of proof was not a static one. As per the provisions of the section 68, the initial burden of proof lies on assessee. Amount appearing

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITAT (Mumbai) in the case of ITO vs Anant Shelters (p) Ltd. [2012] 051 SOT 0234 that in matters regarding cash credit the onus of proof was not a static one. As per the provisions of the section 68, the initial burden of proof lies on assessee. Amount appearing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

that the statements of any person recorded u/ s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee-company has fully discharged the burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital and advances received by established the identity, reditworthiness and genuineness of transaction by banking instruments with documentary

DCIT Circle-15 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rankin Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 56(2)(viib)

series of measures to deter the generation and use of unaccounted money. To this end, I propose: (i) ….. (ii) …... (iii) 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.” In this regard

M/S Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 234Section 68

shows genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, onus of proof would shift to revenue. (7) CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. [20111 203 Taxman 36/333 ITR 100/15 taxtnann.com 183 (Bom.) Once documents like ... referred in section 10(23FB)]. 11. Objective of the amendment — As explained in the Memorandum: "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. 12. Judicial pronouncements

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Luxora Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Kishore DewaniFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

indicator of bonafide of the cash credit that has to be disapproved only with positive evidence. (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 ... Creditworthiness of the lender can be established by attending circumstances. Once the assessee produces evidences about identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender, onus of proof shifts to the revenue. 2.4.6 I find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court was seized of a similar situation in Commissioner of Income

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Kumar Jain, New Delhi

ITA 5342/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143Section 68

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 284/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish P. Ltd. It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “In any matter, the onus of proof is not static one. Though in section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee, yet once he proves the identity ... showing money in his books of account either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus of proof would shift to the revenue. Just because creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the revenue right

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 283/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish P. Ltd. It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “In any matter, the onus of proof is not static one. Though in section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee, yet once he proves the identity ... showing money in his books of account either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus of proof would shift to the revenue. Just because creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the revenue right

M/S Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 875/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 875/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2442/10, 1St Floor, Beadonpura, Central Circle-20, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv6176G Assessee By : Sh. P. Roy Chaudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.08.2021

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

identity and capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. Considering the facts, the appellant has clearly failed to discharge his onus of proof. 17. In view of above fads a reasonable inference can be drawn that M/s Sidhvandan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. wanted the introduction

M/S Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 2106/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITA.No.913 of 2010) (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), in which it was held as under : “In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the initial burden of proof lies on the assesses yet once ... transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus of proof would shift to the Revenue. Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Arizona Venutres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1428/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

M/S. Aarya Organic Foods & Ayurvedic Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3004/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.3004/Del/2017 For A.Y. 2012-13 M/S. Aarya Organic Vs. Ito Foods & Ayurvedic Ward – 1(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 504, Pratap Chamber-2, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 Pan- Aahca 9363 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-I, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Apex Court submitted that in a case where Share Capital/Premium is credited in the books of account of the Assessee company, the onus of proof is on the assessee to establish by cogent and reliable evidence the identity of the investor companies, the credit-worthiness of the investors, and genuineness