Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Naveen Gera on 17 August, 2010 cites

K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981

9. We do not find merit in the submission made by Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal that the concealed income was detected during the course of ITA 736/2010 Page 4 of 7 search or any evidence was found which would indicate such concealment. The seized material containing the sale deeds of the properties, which have been relied upon to make reference to DVO, had already been declared to the revenue by the respondent-assessee under VDIS. We are also in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Piyush Kaushik that it is settled law that in the absence of any incriminating evidence that anything has been paid over and above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an under-statement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Further, the opinion of DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon in the absence of other corroborative evidence (See K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 9468/2003 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. M/s. Dhariya Construction Company) decided by the Apex Court on 16th February, 2010, CIT Vs. Shakuntala Devi, (2009) 316 ITR 46, CIT Vs. Ashok Khetrapal, (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Del.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 3460 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Shakuntla Devi on 1 July, 2010

9. We do not find merit in the submission made by Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal that the concealed income was detected during the course of ITA 736/2010 Page 4 of 7 search or any evidence was found which would indicate such concealment. The seized material containing the sale deeds of the properties, which have been relied upon to make reference to DVO, had already been declared to the revenue by the respondent-assessee under VDIS. We are also in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Piyush Kaushik that it is settled law that in the absence of any incriminating evidence that anything has been paid over and above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an under-statement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Further, the opinion of DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon in the absence of other corroborative evidence (See K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 9468/2003 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. M/s. Dhariya Construction Company) decided by the Apex Court on 16th February, 2010, CIT Vs. Shakuntala Devi, (2009) 316 ITR 46, CIT Vs. Ashok Khetrapal, (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Del.)
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 39 - A K Mittal - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri. Ashok Khetrapal on 18 July, 2007

9. We do not find merit in the submission made by Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal that the concealed income was detected during the course of ITA 736/2010 Page 4 of 7 search or any evidence was found which would indicate such concealment. The seized material containing the sale deeds of the properties, which have been relied upon to make reference to DVO, had already been declared to the revenue by the respondent-assessee under VDIS. We are also in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Piyush Kaushik that it is settled law that in the absence of any incriminating evidence that anything has been paid over and above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an under-statement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Further, the opinion of DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon in the absence of other corroborative evidence (See K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 9468/2003 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. M/s. Dhariya Construction Company) decided by the Apex Court on 16th February, 2010, CIT Vs. Shakuntala Devi, (2009) 316 ITR 46, CIT Vs. Ashok Khetrapal, (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Del.)
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 27 - V B Gupta - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata vs Mukundray K. Shah on 10 April, 2007

10. Further, the reliance of learned counsel for the revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in Mukundray K. Shah (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, the entire picture regarding the working of circular trading became apparent only after seeing the cash flow statement ITA 736/2010 Page 5 of 7 which emerged in the inquiry conducted by the Department on the basis of evidence found during the search. In the present case, since the details of the properties had already been disclosed under VDIS, it cannot be said that the Department came in possession of any information which it did not possess earlier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 91 - Full Document
1