Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ms. Monica Oswal, Jawahar Lal Oswal And ... on 15 September, 2003
9. I find that the assessee before the assessing officer contended that she is
doing small contract business and also claimed that TDS of Rs. 3057/- was
deducted by payer from the contract receipt i.e. by Art Cottage Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. of Rs. 1,52,850/-, TDS is reflected in Form 26AS. There
was other cash receipt from other contract in cash of Rs. 3,25,730/-. Thus,
the assessee has reasonably explained the source of cash, which is also
offered for taxation under section 44AD. In my view the assessee has
discharged her primary onus in explaining source of money on which profit
under section 44AD was offered to tax. The detail of payer is available in
Form 26AS. Mere statement of assessee is not sufficient to make addition
under section 69A. Once, the assessee has discharged her onus, there is no
other burden on the assessee, the onus shifted on the assessing officer to
prove otherwise by making further investigation and to bring adverse
material. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in
CIT Vs Jawahar Lal Oswal (2016) 382 ITR 253/76 taxmann.com 168 (P&H).
Thus, in my view income offered by assessee under presumptive income
under section is liable to be accepted. In the result, the grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are allowed.
Section 151A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Barkha Ramesh Merchant , Mumbai vs Acit 16(1), Mumbai on 12 April, 2022
The TDS made by parties is duly reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee is
small contractor and doing business with the help of her husband. Copy of
Form 26AS is also placed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that
in case of Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal vs ACIT in ITA No. 1873, 1874 &
1875/M/2025 which is also based on similar search action, wherein the
addition under section 69A was deleted. The ld. AR further submits that
CBDT in its Instruction No. 286 of 2003 has also instructed it field officer that
instead of taking confession, the assessing officer should rely on evidence
gathered during search or survey action. The statement per se cannot be
treated as evidence unless it is corroborative by other evidence. There is no
other evidence except statement of assessee. Such statement is not correct.
In the statement it is recorded that the assessee has not filed return of
income, however, the assessee filed return of income for assessment year
under consideration much prior to search action. The income offered by
assessee is supported by TDS deducted by prayer on the payment of contract
receipt. The ld AR of the assessee prayed for allowing to submit his short-
written synopsis. The ld AR of the assessee filed his written synopsis on
04.0.2025 again making certain submissions on the issue which was not
heard at the time of submissions. To support his various contention, the ld.
AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws:
Asst Cit Cir 1, Kalyan vs Gauri Vinayak Builders & Developers ... on 8 May, 2017
4. The ld. CIT(A) on considering the assessment order and the submission of
assessee including Circular of CBDT No. 5 of 2010 noted that assessee in her
statement, recorded under section 132(4) stated that she is house-wife and
does not have any source of income and not filed return of income. However,
the assessee has shown contract receipt of Rs. 4,78,580/- under section
44AD. No supporting evidence in support of claim of presumptive income
under section 44AD is filed. Further, there is no bank entry of expenses. Even
during appellate proceeding, the assessee has not furnished any
documentary evidence. The ld. CIT(A) referred the decision of Apex Court in
CIT vs P. Mohana Kala 291 ITR 278, wherein it was held that money came by
way of cheque and paid through process of banking transaction itself is of no
consequences. The assessee is not carrying out any business activity. The
assessee has not fulfilled this requirement of provision of business income
under presumptive basis as there is no business activity. On the basis of
aforesaid observation upheld the addition made by assessing officer. Further,
aggrieved the assessee is filed present appeal before Tribunal.