“burden of proof shifted”

Judicial DoctrinesEvidenceEvidence7 judgments

M/S. ALVIN REALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1620/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

which definitely fail to substantiate the creditworthiness of these loan giving parties. It was reiterated that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof shifted on it as a result of field enquiry conducted by AO. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, in our view the provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GOYAL AND CO. (CONST.) PRIVATE LIMITED., AHMEDABAD

ITA 1836/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1836/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2016-17 The Dcit Goyal & Co. (Const.) Private बनाम/ Central Circle-1(2), Limited V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 10Th Floor Commerce House Iv Beside Reliance Petrol Pump 100Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 अपीलाथ'/ (Appellant) !( यथ'/ (Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2024 - िनधा"रण वष" /Ay 2016-17 (In Ita No.1836/Ahd/2024 – Ay 2016-17) V/S. Goyal & Co. (Const.) Private The Dcit Limited Central Circle-1(2), 10Th Floor,Commerce House Iv Ahmedabad – 380 009 Beside Reliance Petrol Pump 100Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Aabcg 5459 R (Cross Objector) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

corresponding cash entries were also related to the land transaction. The explanation that it was prepared for educational use is wholly unconvincing. The burden of proof shifted to the assessee to prove that the corresponding entries relating to cash transactions did not belong to the assessee, which the assessee failed

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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

ITA 302/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133Section 133(5)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

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