← All Phrases

“burden of proof shifted”

Judicial DoctrinesEvidenceEvidence7 judgments

The decision most relied on for burden of proof shifted is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on burden of proof shifted

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

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.

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. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

CIT v. M.K. Brothers
163 ITR 249 · 1987 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in books and made through banking channels. Once the assessee furnishes relevant documentation, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the transaction is not genuine.

MOD Creation Pvt Ltd. v. Case
354 ITR 282 · 2013 · High Court
154
citing judgments

Under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the initial burden is on the assessee to establish the authenticity of transactions for unexplained credits. Once authenticity is proven, this burden shifts, and the assessee is not required to prove the genuineness or source of funds of the creditor beyond this.

Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT
49 ITR 723 · 1963 · High Court
123
citing judgments

When a cash credit is found, the assessee discharges the initial burden by proving the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, shifting the burden to the Revenue. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the creditor's funds (source of source).

PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
84 Taxmann.com 58 · 2017 · High Court
87
citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings initiated on the ground that companies providing share capital were non-existent, if the assessee provides documentary evidence of their existence, the burden shifts to the revenue to establish reasons for reassessment.

Judgments citing burden of proof shifted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Arul Raja, Tuticorin

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2845/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.: 2845/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Arul Raja, Income Tax, V. 43J, Saint Peter Koil Street, Central Circle -2, Tuticorin – 628 001. Madurai – 625 002. [Pan: Aevpr-9611-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 09.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.67,96,000/- Made Towards Unexplained Money U/S.69A. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Holding That The Statement Made By The Assessee That The Source For The Cash· Was Withdrawals From Banks As A Plausible Explanation In The Absence Of Proof Evidencing The Transactions & Wrongly Observed That Burden Of Proof Shifted To The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

cash· was withdrawals from banks as a plausible explanation in the absence of proof evidencing the transactions and wrongly observed that burden of proof shifted to the Assessing Officer. :-2-: ITA. No: 2845/Chny/2024 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly held that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record that ... cash was withdrawals from banks as a plausible explanation in the absence of proof evidencing the transactions and wrongly observed that burden of proof shifted to the Assessing Officer. Further, the ld. DR stated that the Ld. CIT (A) wrongly held that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vireet Investments Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 938/DEL/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 48Section 80G

price of Rs.42/- per share was sold. Therefore, in view of the fact that assessee has discharged its primary onus hence burden of proof shifted to the AO to establish it otherwise. The AO has not disputed the above facts submitted by the appellant and accepted the same

Shree Veer Buildbest Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3) Now Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 892/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.892/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ 302, Swapneel – 5 Ward-4(1)(1) Commerce Six Road Ahmedabad- 380 015 V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakcs 8358 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 21/09/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2014 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

request to produce TIPL's directors was impractical, especially given TIPL's non-compliance with its own proceedings. He further argued that the burden of proof shifted to the Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 11 AO after providing initial evidence, and the AO failed

Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 856/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Ashok Chandrabhan V The Income Tax Officer, Khandave, S Ward-3(1), Nashik. At Post Village Pimpalnare, Dindori, Nashik, Maharashtra – 422004. Panl: Daqpk6919D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ganesh Budruk – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 23.02.2024.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,06,000Out Of The Total Addition Of Rs. 10,06,000 Made By The A.O. Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits In Bank Account During Demonetization Period Without Appreciating That The Said Cash Deposits Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave [A]

Section 250Section 68

carried out any inquiry with reference to the bills or 7/12 filed by the assessee. Once the assessee had filed these documents the Burden of Proof shifted to the Assessing 4 Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave [A] Officer.The AO has merely mentioned one sentence that it is a colorable device. The onus