CIT v Nandlal Gandalal
(1960) 40 ITR 1 (Supreme Court)19601 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- Cash credits appeared in the books of Nandlal Gandalal without satisfactory explanation of source. The assessee claimed the amounts were loans or deposits from third parties.
- Issue
- On whom lies the burden of proving unexplained cash credits
- Held
- The burden is initially on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and capacity of the creditor to lend.
- Principle
- Profit on sale of silver by a money-lender is taxable as business income if silver constitutes stock-in-trade.
Facts
- Cash credits appeared in the books of Nandlal Gandalal without satisfactory explanation of source
- The assessee claimed the amounts were loans or deposits from third parties
- The AO rejected the explanations as unsatisfactory (confirmations inadequate, creditors not produced)
- The amount was assessed as income from undisclosed sources
Issues
- On whom lies the burden of proving unexplained cash credits
- What standard of proof discharges the assessee's burden regarding credits in books
Held
- The burden is initially on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and capacity of the creditor to lend
- If the assessee fails to discharge this burden satisfactorily, the credit may be treated as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources
- The AO was justified in rejecting the explanations and assessing the amount as income
Ratio decidendi
An unexplained credit in books creates a presumption that it represents concealed income. The assessee, being the person with knowledge of their own affairs, bears the initial burden. Three conditions must be proved: (1) identity of the creditor, (2) genuineness of the transaction, (3) creditworthiness of the creditor. Failure on any count permits the addition.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
- Foundational authority on unexplained cash credits (now S.68)
- Cite in Tax Law questions on burden of proof, cash credits, and additions to income
- Pair with Sumati Dayal v CIT (1995) for the human probabilities test in credit explanations
Cite this
Citation
CIT v Nandlal Gandalal (1960) 40 ITR 1 (Supreme Court)Reported: (1960) 40 ITR 1 (Supreme Court). This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.