Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Santosh Kumar Goyal, Nizamabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 August, 2013 cites

Chhatrasinhji Kesarisinhji Thakore vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 28 October, 1965

9. Further, the learned A.R. submitted before the CIT(A) that action initiated/taken by any another authority ADministering a statute cannot be used against the assessee to which he was not party. The so called order of SEBI, which was not made available to the assessee's, may have impact on the persons who are parties to the proceeding but certainly not on the assessees. It is an established position of law, as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhatrasinhji Kesarisinhji Thakore v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 59 ITR 562,567-68 (SC), that the Income-tax Officer is, within the limits assigned to him under the Act, a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of assessment and he has, under the Act, to decide whether a particular receipt is "income" and it is not, necessary that he must make some person or body other than the assessee, a party to the proceedings before he decides the question; and as between the State and the assessee, it is his function alone to determine whether the receipt is income and is taxable. It is equally 10 beyond doubt that a statutory authority is bound to hold statutory inquiry and perform statutory duties to determine liability under the statute they act and the same cannot be abdicated in any manner basing on the decision of another authority. The assessee's, therefore prayed before the CIT(A) that they should not be penalized for the acts of omissions and commissions of the brokers in a proceeding before another authority to which assessee's were not a party and in the absence of any enquiry by the Assessing Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954

21. The learned counsel for the assessees submitted that mere suspicion and surmise cannot take the place of truth. It was pointed out that in the whole case the AO has raised suspicions without any concrete proof. For this purpose the learned cOunsel relied on the decision of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills(26 ITR 775). Based on the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and Umacharan Shah & Bros vs. CIT West Bengal (37 ITR 271), it is submitted that a suspicion however strong may not take the place of proof. The conclusions which are based on surmises and conjectures cannot take the place of proof therefore the assessment made by the AO which is predominately influenced by suspicion is liable to be set aside. These principles enunciated by the Apex Court have been followed by various Tribunals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 706 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 15 May, 1959

21. The learned counsel for the assessees submitted that mere suspicion and surmise cannot take the place of truth. It was pointed out that in the whole case the AO has raised suspicions without any concrete proof. For this purpose the learned cOunsel relied on the decision of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills(26 ITR 775). Based on the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and Umacharan Shah & Bros vs. CIT West Bengal (37 ITR 271), it is submitted that a suspicion however strong may not take the place of proof. The conclusions which are based on surmises and conjectures cannot take the place of proof therefore the assessment made by the AO which is predominately influenced by suspicion is liable to be set aside. These principles enunciated by the Apex Court have been followed by various Tribunals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 119 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs M/S.Gobi Textiles Limited on 4 September, 2007

In course of hearing, the assessee's had produced its books, there is no finding in the assessment order that payments were not made to the brokers similarly there is no observation in the order that the sales were arranged between the assessee's and the buyer. In the absence of any cogent finding by the AO the observation merely raises some suspicion but this suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Even with regard to the enquiry got conducted by the assessing officer through the DClT Calcutta, which revealed that most of the brokers and the companies were not traceable, the CIT(A) is correct in concluding that mere failure to trace the brokers and 27 companies cannot be held as fatal to the transaction of both purchase and sale, when the details of which have been duly explained by the assessees. The assessee, in our considered opinion, has duly discharged the onus that lies on it, in establishing the genuineness of the transactions, and that being so, it is for the revenue to disprove the claim of the assessee, by bringing on record the evidence to the contrary, as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Gobi Textiles Ltd (294 ITR 663).
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1