← 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

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

Kamlesh Kumar Gadiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 772/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

light of these three well settled canons of adjudication, as embedded in the statute, as also promulgated by various judicial pronouncements. The onus of proof requires the assessee to furnish the proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration

Amplex Projects Private Limited, Agartala vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle Silchar, Silchar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 333/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245DSection 245D(4)Section 250

Dwarkadhish Investment P Ltd. reported in [2011] 330 ITR 0298, relevant portions of which is reproduced 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 assessee ... 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

Suresh Jat, Badnawar vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Dhar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 693/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194HSection 250Section 253Section 69A

record & that no notice(s) have come from the Ld. AO perse is not sufficient to discharge the onus of proof on part of the Assessee. No positive material, no affidavits of assessee/assessee’s counsel has been placed on record that notice(s) (supra) issued by the Ld. AO were

Nezone Tubes Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. In this case, the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proofing the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, it can be concluded that this transaction was in guise of accommodation loan entry of Rs.42 ... assessment order on 30.12.2018 determined total income of Rs. 9,17,97,553/- and stated that the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proofing the creditworthiness of the transaction and same was added by the assessing officer to the total income of the assessee for the said year. During

Nezone Tubes Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. In this case, the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proofing the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, it can be concluded that this transaction was in guise of accommodation loan entry of Rs.42 ... assessment order on 30.12.2018 determined total income of Rs. 9,17,97,553/- and stated that the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proofing the creditworthiness of the transaction and same was added by the assessing officer to the total income of the assessee for the said year. During

Waves Tradeline Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1230/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 68

inquiry proceeding and issued notice u/s.148 for income escaping assessment on purely guess work. The Ld. A.O. has failed to discharge his onus of proof to establish the proper reason for initiation of scrutiny u/s.147 on basis of order u/s.148A(d) and merely on assumption arrived on opinion by neglecting

Waves Tradeline Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1229/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 68

inquiry proceeding and issued notice u/s.148 for income escaping assessment on purely guess work. The Ld. A.O. has failed to discharge his onus of proof to establish the proper reason for initiation of scrutiny u/s.147 on basis of order u/s.148A(d) and merely on assumption arrived on opinion by neglecting

Waves Tradeline Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1228/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 68

inquiry proceeding and issued notice u/s.148 for income escaping assessment on purely guess work. The Ld. A.O. has failed to discharge his onus of proof to establish the proper reason for initiation of scrutiny u/s.147 on basis of order u/s.148A(d) and merely on assumption arrived on opinion by neglecting

Shri Harsh Kumar Thapar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 2751/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harsh Kumar Thapar, Vs. Ito, A-92, Ganga Sagar Colony, Ward-1(3), Ganga Nagar, Meerut. Mawana Road, Meerut. Pan: Abmpt3630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 6ASection 80C

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". 5.9 The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of CIT vs. Aggarwal

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider. However, this additional onus of proof of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well- regulated entity

Ct Educational Society, Jalandhar vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 422/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144B

Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A)’s finding was primarily based on the assessee’s persistent non-compliance and failure to discharge the onus of proof. Despite being served with six hearing notices, the assessee failed to file the required evidence or written submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) found

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Om Trilok Realty & Infrastructure, Mumbai

ITA 4048/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shree Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Deputy Commissioner M/S Om Trilok Realty & Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Infrastructures, Shop No. 6Th Room No. 655, 8, Botawala Building, V Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 82086, Raghavji Road, S M. K. Road, Mumbai- Gowalia Tank, 400020, Maharashtra Mumbai-400036 Pan No. Aabfo8779M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta : Shri R A Dhyani, Cit-Dr Respondent By : 17.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 10.12.2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: 17.09.2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

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 AO weigh more and accordingly in whose favour

DCIT, Delhi vs. Mkf Logistics Pvt Ltd, Delhi

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

ITA 3056/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Mkf Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. E/63B, South Extension Part 1, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaacm5865E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Shri Saksham Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,32,270/- On 10.09.2016. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass, Accordingly Notices Under Section 143(2)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194C

ensuring that the related receipts are included in taxable income, which is contrary to the statutory mandate. 2. Failure of Assessee to Discharge Onus of Proof  The burden of proving that certain receipts were not in the nature of assessee's income squarely lies upon the assessee.  The assessee merely

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar

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

ITA 1572/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

involved in real estate treated as regular business income. According to him, as per provisions of section 68 of the Act, the onus of proof lies with the assessee to explain the nature and source of sums credited in the books of account. Since the assessee in the instant case

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1404/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

involved in real estate treated as regular business income. According to him, as per provisions of section 68 of the Act, the onus of proof lies with the assessee to explain the nature and source of sums credited in the books of account. Since the assessee in the instant case

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1403/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

involved in real estate treated as regular business income. According to him, as per provisions of section 68 of the Act, the onus of proof lies with the assessee to explain the nature and source of sums credited in the books of account. Since the assessee in the instant case

Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4093/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Farm No.14, 8Th Avenue, Radhey Circle-13(1), Mohan Drive, Gadaipur, New Delhi New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aabcj1500C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2025

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider. However, this additional onus of proof of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well-regulated entity

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Vijeta Lodha, Jaipur

58. As a result, the impugned order by Learned CIT(A) deleting the

ITA 390/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: None
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

necessarily fail. To reiterate, the assessee was 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

Excel Financial Consultants (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

ITA 990/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

their subscription towards application money. As far as personal appearance of the subscribers is concerned, the same has nothing to do with the onus of proof of the cash credit u/s 68. Infact the appearance of the directors of the shareholder companies had also nothing to do with the proof