Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 49 (0.37 seconds)Section 44AF 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]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pratima H. Mehta, Mumbai vs Acit, Cc- 2 [(Now Acit, Cc-4(1)], Mumbai on 11 November, 2016
Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of
principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to the
assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO
relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of
opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561
(Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross
examination in para 11 to 17 as under :-
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015
In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the
Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to
cross examine the witnesses and the tribunal merely observed that the cross
examination of the dealers in that case, could not have brought out any
material which would not otherwise be in possession of the appellant-
assessee. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and observed
that it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could
be the subject matter of the cross examination and make the remarks such
as was done in that case.
C.I.T. (Central) Calcutta vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull on 12 September, 1972
As discussed in the foregoing paras, the so called document/evidence was
received from some other person who claimed that transactions recorded therein
belong to the appellant. In that situation, before the impugned amount is brought to
tax in the hands of the assessee, burden of poof lies on the department. Especially,
22
ITA No. 366 & 369/JPR/2023
Ram Dhan Yadav
when the assessee had categorically denied that such transactions did not pertain to
him. In that situation, the ld AO was required to bring some more material on record
to corroborate his findings. The ld AO has utterly failed to discharge his burden of
proof and simply made additions in the hands of the assessee which is against the
settled principle of jurisprudence. The onus to prove that the apparent is not the real
,is on the party who claims it to be so. ( CIT v Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR
349 (SC).