← 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

Tajshree Autowheels Private Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

speech above provisions were introduced as a series of measures to deter the generation and use of unaccounted money by 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. From the above circular

ITO (Exem.)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Satvichar Darshan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3030/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah & Bhavisha Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 11Section 2(15)

amount to "business" unless an independent intention to carry on "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 ... order as to costs. 13. As per the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said decision, the onus of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the assessee was “carrying on business” in respect of the impugned receipt. Even in the case

ITO (Exem.)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Satvichar Darshan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3029/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah & Bhavisha Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 11Section 2(15)

amount to "business" unless an independent intention to carry on "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 ... order as to costs. As per the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said decision, the onus of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the assessee was “carrying on business" in respect of the impugned receipt. Even in the case

ITO (Exem.)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Satvichar Darshan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3028/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah & Bhavisha Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 11Section 2(15)

amount to "business" unless an independent intention to carry on "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 ... order as to costs. As per the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said decision, the onus of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the assessee was “carrying on business" in respect of the impugned receipt. Even in the case

Bhavuk Sehgal, Ajmer Fuels Shrinagar Road Ajmer vs. DCIT Circle -2 Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1467/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

separate addition can be made even u/s 68 of the Act, even thought the assesee has failed to discharge the onus of proof in explaining the amount shown in the books of accounts as ‘’Market Outstanding’’. 9 SHRI BHAVUK SEHGAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-2, AJMER Respectfully following the same

Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 38/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

ACIT (2000) 67 TTJ (Chd) 838 Held that “No addition can be made on dumb documents”. It is a settled legal position that onus of proof is on the person who makes any allegation and not on the person who has to defend. As per legal maxim “affairmanti non neganti ... upon one who alleges and not upon one who denies the existence of the fact. The Ld. AO has failed to discharge his onus of proof especially when addition has been made under a “deeming fiction”. The initial onus u/% 292C was also not on appellant for the reason that

Inderjit Singh Brar, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 537/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 69

been made u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 as unexplained investment and added to the income of the assessee." The onus of proof was on assesse to proof that the unexplained income shown in the return of income under the disguise of business & profession with the proper supporting evidences

Chintan Shailesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-30(1)(2), Now ITO Ward-41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 2469/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarchintan Shailesh Shah Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1)(2) Rushikesh, Shanti Nagar, (Now Ward 41(3)(1)) Adarsh Dugdhalaya Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Malad (W), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400064. 400051. Pan/Gir No. Amzps2768Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

proceedings paragraphs. 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 ... Swati Bajaj & others (supra) that the assessee was not named in the report but when the assessee makes the claim for exemption the onus of proof is on the assessee to prove the genuinity and the assessees cannot be permitted to contend that the assessments were based on surmises

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Buildspace LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68

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

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1482/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68

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

Sushila Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 638/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Katariya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT (Thr. V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sunita Jajoo, Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 882/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 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

Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

ITA 552/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo (Physical Court Hearing) 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat City, Surat-395 002 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 882/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Sunita Jajoo 429-432, Golden Point, Near Bsnl Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 [Pan: Aampj 0040 K] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Richa Toshniwal. Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Separate Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As "Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 & 21.04.2023 For Same

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 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

Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/CHANDI/1996[01/04/1985 to 17/07/1995]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025
For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158B

much as Section 69 has been wrongly applied for the purposes of making additions in the hands of the assessee. The onus of proof under section 69 lies on the Ld. A.O which has not been discharged and in the absence thereof the assessment is liable to be cancelled

DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Ascent Buildhome Developers Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

necessary to validate the claimed expenses.The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition without considering the fact that the assessee failed to fulfill the onus of proof. The AO's disallowance was based on substantial non-compliance by the assessee, who avoided personal attendance in response to summons issued under Section

Gold Ancher Exim Private Limited, Khar West - Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Panjabi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

bogus purchases of Rs. 2,86,09,257/- with relevant documentary evidences nor the concerned parties (hawala dealers) could be traceable. Thus the onus of proof for genuineness of the purchases failed to be discharged by the assessee. Further, reliance was also placed on decisions (1) to record that even

Dashmesh Timber and Furniture House, Ajnala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

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

ITA 542/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(3)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

case the excess stock and the excess cash surrendered by the assessee are interlinked and the assessee has been able to discharge his onus of proof , which is to be understood with reference to facts of each case and proper inference has to be drawn from such facts

Vinod Kumar Gupta (D) Through Lr'S Smt. Madhu Gupta, Smt. Madhu Gupta, Sh. Anuj Gupta, Sh. Ashish Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 52(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2751/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 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

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

following words :- To reiterate, the assessee were not named in the report and when the assessee makes the claim of exemption, the onus of proof is on assessee to prove the genuniness. Unfortunately, the assessees are harping on the transactions done by them and by relying on the documents

Satish Kumar Agrawal, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 145/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.145/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Satish Kumar Agrawal 3B, Heav Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Adqpa1785K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

that when an inquiry is launched under Section 143(3) of the Act, the findings will not depend only upon the presumption, the onus of proof could not be cast entirely upon the revenue and such onus would shift on the revenue only if the assessee produced some material