← All Phrases

identity of creditor

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68515 judgments

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

Leading authorities on identity of creditor

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.

DCIT v. Rohini Builders
256 ITR 360 · 2002 · High Court
489
citing judgments

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by providing creditor details like PAN and addresses, proving creditworthiness via banking transactions, and demonstrating genuineness, especially when loans are repaid through cheques.

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.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

An assessee introducing share capital or share premium must establish the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor or creditor; the burden does not extend to proving the 'source of source' or the financial capacity of the investor's sub-creditors.

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. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 680 · 2017 · High Court
303
citing judgments

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

Judgments citing identity of creditor

Shri V. Natarajan (Individual), Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

whose genuineness is to be established by proving genuineness of amount by satisfying three conditions laid down by Hon'ble Courts i.e 1. Identity of creditor, 2. Creditworthiness of creditor and 3. Genuineness of transaction. 7.5.4 It is the contention of appellant once details of persons i.e. names of relatives ... that the initial onus is upon assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of section 68. They are 1. Identity of creditor 2. Creditworthiness of creditor and 3. Genuineness of transaction. Only when these three things are established prima facie by placing relevant documentary evidence, the department

Varadappan Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

whose genuineness is to be established by proving genuineness of amount by satisfying three conditions laid down by Hon'ble Courts i.e 1. Identity of creditor, 2. Creditworthiness of creditor and 3. Genuineness of transaction. 7.5.4 It is the contention of appellant once details of persons i.e. names of relatives ... that the initial onus is upon assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of section 68. They are 1. Identity of creditor 2. Creditworthiness of creditor and 3. Genuineness of transaction. Only when these three things are established prima facie by placing relevant documentary evidence, the department

Shri Bhupendra Kumar Agarwal, Lucknow vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-III, Lucknow

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

ITA 122/LKW/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Range-3 V. Shri Bhupendra Kumar 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Agarwal Marg, P.K. Complex, Lucknow- Bhagwati Industrial 226001. Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow-226020. Tan/Pan:Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhupendra Kumar V. Acit Range-Iii Agarwal Lucknow-226010. Bhagwati Industrial Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow- 226020. Tan/Pan: Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Suyash Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

above factual findings as per the details available in the assessment record, it is held that the appellant failed to establish the identity of Creditors, ‘creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions in cases of Shel Trading Company and Prakash Trading Company. The credit balances sin respect of these ... above factual findings as per the details available in the assessment record, it is held that the appellant failed to establish the identity of creditors, creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions in cases of Sheel Trading Company and Prakash Trading Company. The credit balances in respect of these

DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow vs. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Agarwal, Lucknow

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

ITA 410/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Range-3 V. Shri Bhupendra Kumar 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Agarwal Marg, P.K. Complex, Lucknow- Bhagwati Industrial 226001. Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow-226020. Tan/Pan:Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhupendra Kumar V. Acit Range-Iii Agarwal Lucknow-226010. Bhagwati Industrial Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow- 226020. Tan/Pan: Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Suyash Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

above factual findings as per the details available in the assessment record, it is held that the appellant failed to establish the identity of Creditors, ‘creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions in cases of Shel Trading Company and Prakash Trading Company. The credit balances sin respect of these ... above factual findings as per the details available in the assessment record, it is held that the appellant failed to establish the identity of creditors, creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions in cases of Sheel Trading Company and Prakash Trading Company. The credit balances in respect of these