Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.39 seconds)
Ashok Goel , Ludhiana vs Assessee on 19 May, 2016 cites

Sh. Subhash Chander Goel, Chandigarh vs Assessee on 18 November, 2015

Recently, Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Subhash Chander Goel Vs. ITO, Chandigarh in ITA No.282/Chd/2014 relating to assessment year 2006-07 held that statement recorded by the police officer under section 161 of CrPc, 1983 is neither given on oath, nor it is tested by cross examination and, therefore, such a statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence to reopen the assessment proceedings. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer had not examined and corroborated the information received from DDIT (Investigation)-III, Ludhiana before recording his satisfaction of the escaped income and 13 initiating the re-assessment proceedings. In my opinion, the Assessing Officer has thus acted on the basis of suspicion and he has also not applied his mind before recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Thus in my considered opinion, the statement made by Ms.Sarika Jain under section 161 of CrPc cannot be treated as relevant material for reopening proceedings under section 147 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited on 20 August, 2010

At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H), wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the re- assessment, the moment he found the two grounds mentioned in the re-assessment notice incorrect or non- existent. In the instant case also, notice was issued to the assessee on ground that he had made the complaint to the SSP of Police, which is factually incorrect. In fact, the assessee did not make any complaint to the SSP, Ludhiana. Secondly, the Assessing Officer has mentioned in the reasons recorded that information was received from DDIT (Investigation)-III, Ludhiana that the assessee and his daughter Ms.Sarika Jain had spent approximately 12 Rs.37 lacs on her engagement and marriage ceremony. It is brought to our notice that no addition has been made in the hands of Ms.Sarika Jain. On the contrary, Smt.Sarika Jain alleged in her complaint made with the Police that the assessee had spent an amount of Rs.7 lacs at the time of Roka and Engagement functions. It is also observed that in this case the information was provided by DDIT (Investigation)-III, Ludhiana on the basis of Police Report, wherein the daughter of the assessee alleged that a huge amount has been spent on marriage and Roka ceremony. The complaint was made by Ms.Sarika Jain against her husband and in-laws. Shri S.K. Maingi, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the said complaint was made by Ms.Sarika Jain in order to fetch money from her husband and in-laws. This contention of the learned counsel for the assessee has some force, which can not be ignored.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 99 - A K Goel - Full Document
1   2 Next