Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2018 (8) TMI 738 - HC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Bank account entries as prima facie evidence can rebut a deposit claim when best evidence is withheld. Certified bank account entries made in the ordinary course of business were treated as prima facie evidence and, when supported by surrounding ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Bank account entries as prima facie evidence can rebut a deposit claim when best evidence is withheld.

                            Certified bank account entries made in the ordinary course of business were treated as prima facie evidence and, when supported by surrounding circumstances, could rebut a depositor's claim on a preponderance of probabilities. The alleged cash deposit was not proved, as the plaintiff withheld the best available evidence and an adverse inference was drawn from the delay and lack of corroboration. The limitation plea was not entertained in appeal because it had not been raised below and depended on mixed questions of fact and law. On that evidentiary basis, the decree under review was set aside and the claim failed on the merits.




                            Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the bank's statement of accounts under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act displaced the plaintiff's claim; (iii) whether the bank had rebutted the claim and the burden had shifted back to the plaintiff; and (iv) whether the decree of the Single Judge called for interference.

                            Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred by limitation

                            Analysis: The plea of limitation had not been raised in the written statement or tried as an issue below. Determining the effect of the relevant limitation article required factual findings on the nature of the deposits, the demand, and the alleged renewal or consolidation. A pure limitation bar was therefore not apparent on the face of the plaint, and the question involved a mixed question of fact and law that was not fit to be decided for the first time in appeal.

                            Conclusion: The suit was not rejected on the ground of limitation in appeal.

                            Issue (ii): Whether the bank's statement of accounts under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act displaced the plaintiff's claim

                            Analysis: Certified entries in the ordinary course of business constitute prima facie evidence of the matters recorded in the bank's books. The statement of accounts showed reversal of the two earlier deposits and reflected only one consolidated deposit. The entry was consistent with the bank's stand before the other forums and was not effectively challenged in cross-examination. The letter relied upon by the plaintiff merely conveyed information and did not outweigh the contemporaneous account entries.

                            Conclusion: The bank's statement of accounts carried greater evidentiary weight and supported the defence.

                            Issue (iii): Whether the bank had rebutted the claim and the burden had shifted back to the plaintiff

                            Analysis: Once the bank produced material showing consolidation of the earlier deposits and denial of any cash deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to establish the alleged cash payment. The plaintiff did not produce the income-tax returns that could have corroborated such a substantial cash transaction and remained silent for years despite the short maturity periods. The plaintiff's conduct, the surrounding circumstances, and the absence of the best available evidence justified an adverse inference and rebutted any presumption in his favour.

                            Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove the alleged cash deposit and the bank successfully rebutted the claim.

                            Issue (iv): Whether the decree of the Single Judge called for interference

                            Analysis: The Single Judge had not given due weight to the contemporaneous account entries, the respondent's delayed conduct, and the relevance of the inquiries made by the statutory authorities. Since the evidentiary appreciation below was found to be unsustainable, the decree could not stand.

                            Conclusion: The judgment and decree of the Single Judge were set aside.

                            Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the suit decree was reversed, and the respondent's claim failed on the merits.

                            Ratio Decidendi: Certified bank account entries made in the ordinary course of business constitute prima facie evidence, and when supported by surrounding circumstances and adverse inference from withholding best evidence, they can rebut the opposing party's claim on a preponderance of probabilities.


                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found