Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.15 seconds)
Vivek Agarwal, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 6 April, 2018 cites

Nisha Jain, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 31 January, 2018

The AO has passed the impugned order on the basis of the statement of Shri Deepak Patwari which is identical as in the case of Shri Pramod Jain & others vs. DCIT. Accordingly following the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, we hold that the addition made by the AO is merely based on suspicion and surmises without any cogent material to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee in support of 14 ITA No. 292/JP/2017 Shri Vivek Agarwal, Jaipur.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015

It is manifest from the assessee's reply to show cause notice that the assessee had specifically demanded the cross examination of Shri Deepak Patwari however, the Assessing Officer did not offer the opportunity to the assessee to cross examine Shri Deepak Patwari. Further, the AO asked the assessee to produce the Principal Officers of the M/s Gravity Barter Ltd. and M/s Paridhi Properties Ltd. However, in our view if the Assessing Officer wanted to examine the principal Officers of those companies he was having the authority to summon them and record their statements instead of shifting burden on the assessee. It is not expected from the assessee individual to produce the principal Officers of the companies rather the AO ought to have summoned them if the examination of the officers were considered as necessary by the AO. Hence, it was improper and unjustified on the part of the AO to asked the assessee to produce the principal Officers of those companies. As regards the non grant of opportunity to cross examine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue has held in para 5 to 8 as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 602 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Jaipur vs Smt Pooja Agarwal on 11 September, 2017

Therefore, when the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has paid over and above the purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain. The Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agrawal (supra) has upheld the finding of the Tribunal on this issue in para 12 as under:-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 48 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Gtc Industries Ltd ( Presently Known As ... vs Acit Cir 8(1) , Mumbai on 15 February, 2017

Therefore, the statement of witness cannot be sole basis of the assessment without given an opportunity of cross examination and consequently it is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. The Mumbai Special of the Tribunal in case of GTC Industries vs. ACIT (supra) had the occasion to consider the addition made by the AO on the basis of suspicion and surmises and observed in par 46 as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 79 - Full Document
1