Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : DCIT Vs Shri Krishna Kumar Verma (ITAT Indore)
Appeal Number : ITA No.185/Ind/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/02/2023
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

DCIT Vs Shri Krishna Kumar Verma (ITAT Indore)

Sections 68,69,69A,69B,69C and 69D may be called as Section 68 & 69 Family. However, they differ in as far as Burden of Proof is concerned. In sec 68, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under sec 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, the words used show that before any of these sections are invoked, the condition precedent as to existence of investment, expenditure, etc. must be conclusively established by material on record/ evidence.

Section 101 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specifies that Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

In Mad HC in N Swamy 241 ITR 363 relied by Chennai ITAT in Omega Estates and Chd ITAT in Dr. R.L.Narang, it was held that The burden of showing that the assessee had undisclosed income is on the revenue.

In ITO vs. Mrs. Deepali Sehgal (ITAT Delhi), ITA No. 5660/Del/2012, the AO noted that assessee had withdrawn huge cash from bank account and the same amount had been deposited to the same account after lapse of substantial time. The AO rejected the explanation and held that the assessee hadcash deposit of Rs.24,38,000/- as unexplained money and the assessee found to be the owner of the money as he had not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation. AO, in his remand report could not bring out any fact that the cash withdrawn from Saving Bank Account and partnership overdraft account was used for other purpose anywhere else then, merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and its further deposit to the bank account, the amount cannot be treated as income from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. Hence, the addition made by AO without any legal and justified reason was rightly deleted by the CIT (A).

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.


Author Bio

Mr. Vivek Jalan is a Fellow Member of the Institute Of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) ; a qualified LL.M (Constitutional Law) and LL.B. He is the Chairman of The Core Group on Indirect Taxes of The CII- Economic Affairs and Taxation Committee (ER); He is the Chairman of The Fiscal Affairs Com View Full Profile

My Published Posts

IBC has overriding effect over provisions of Income Tax & GST Act Mere usage of name of Foreign AE not convert a transaction into international transaction Interest u/s 36(1)(iii) allowed as deduction even for purchase of Capital Asset PMLA Act and Maintenance of records become more stringent MOOWR Scheme: A Must For Manufacturers to Save 1% – 3% of Cost View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2024