Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs R L Jalappa, Bengaluru on 21 May, 2026 cites

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 1 August, 2017

However, it does not contain the name of assessee or signature of any person authorised by the assessee. They are mere non-speaking loose sheets containing unsubstantiated jottings having no evidentiary value. First of all to come to the conclusion that these are full proof documents, the department should have given cross- examination of the author of these loose sheets which was not provided. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Del), statement recorded u/s. 132(4) did not by themselves substitute incriminating material and on that basis assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153A and consequent addition made by AO were not justified. Further it was observed that statement u/s. 132(4) during the course of search action not only has to be offered to the assessee, but an opportunity to cross-examine has to be given. If it was not provided, it is sufficient to discard such statement which is evident from para 37 of that judgment.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 44 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S Fateh Chand Charitable Trust, ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 20 March, 2017

Similar view was taken by Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Fateh Chand Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) Lucknow 2016 (4) TMI 1119 - ITAT Lucknow / [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 276 wherein it was held that even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) and wanted to cross-examine, the adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee and held that testimony of witnesses has to be discharged as there was no material with the department on the basis of which it could justify its action.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Smt. Madhu Chhanda Sirkar, Kolkata vs Dcit, Circle - 50, Kolkata, Kolkata on 26 September, 2018

182. The contention of the ld. DR is that the department relied upon the statement of assessee's own employee, Page 5 of 9 ITA Nos. 2579 to 2582/Bang/2025 who need not cross-examine its own employee and there is no mistake in not providing opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee. However, we are not in agreement with the contention of the ld. DR. The right to cross-examine is not dependent upon the assessee's relationship with the witnesses. The right to cross-examine depends upon the fact that statement of the party is used against the assessee. Therefore the mere fact that the statement sought to be relied upon by the AO is that of the employee would not disentitle the assessee to cross- examine. Therefore, the ratio relied upon by the assessee squarely applies and it is the prerogative of assessee whether it wants to cross-examine or not. It was held in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (MUM.) that even if the assessee was provided a copy of the statement recorded by the revenue on the spur of the moment, that should not be treated as an effective opportunity given to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Gargi Din Jwala Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 August, 1973

In that case the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All) wherein it was held that permission to cross-examine witness given, but names of the witnesses and substance of the statement made by them not given is not a proper opportunity and on that ground assessment was vitiated by the principles of natural justice as permission to cross- examine all the witnesses are illusory. Further in the present case, these seized material A/DUU/1 to 4 though did not contain the name of assessee or signature of any person, they are merely unsubstantiated loose sheets.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Acit Cen Cir 29 Cen Rg 7, Mumbai vs Knight Riders Sports P.Ltd, Mumbai on 12 December, 2018

As held by the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Layers Exports P. Ltd [2017] 53 ITR (Trib) 416 (Mumbai), addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets, unless AO brings on record some independent and corroborative material to prove irrefutably that the said noting revealed unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. The very purpose of search concluded u/s. 132 is to unearth hidden income or property or get hold of books of account or documents which has not been or will not be otherwise produced by the assessee in regular course on issue of summons or notice. In the assessee's case, as stated above, the purported search action did not lead to discovery of any unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing. Further, no books of account revealing any undisclosed transactions of the assessee were found during the course of search. The entire assessment order revolves around scribbling in loose sheets of papers seized Page 6 of 9 ITA Nos. 2579 to 2582/Bang/2025 from premises of another person in course of search action on such other person. It is a fact that the said rough loose sheets of papers scribbled by some anonymous person and seized in course of search of another person cannot be termed as 'documents' having any evidentiary value within the meaning of section 132 or section 132A of the Act. Thus, the entire assessment u/s 153A of the Act in case of the assessee rests on shaky and incorrect foundation and thus deserves to be quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next