Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 22 September, 1971
The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State
of Kerala (91 ITR 18) has held that an admission is an important piece of
evidence but not conclusive, and it is open to the assessee to explain or
rebut the same. In this case, the assessee's explanation is consistent
with the absence of corroborative evidence on record.
12.4 Further, the addition of interest income on a notional basis is
contrary to the settled principle that income must accrue or arise with
reasonable certainty.
M/S.Sabari Enterprises P. Ltd,, Kollam vs The Acit, Cen-Circle, Kollam on 13 December, 2018
2.9 The assessee relying on the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of
ACIT v. Ganapati Enterprises Ltd. reported in 32 taxmann.com 262 and
.
Ms Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Acit Central Circle-2 Ajmer on 31 August, 2018
4.3 Relying on judicial precedents such as Bannalal Jat Constructions
Pvt Ltd (supra), Avadh Kishore Das vs. Ram Gopal in AIR 1979 SC 861,
Sudharshan Amin vs ACIT in [2013] 35 taxmann.com 370 (Gujarat), etc.
submitted that such ruling makes it clear that retraction cannot be
accepted unless supported by strong and contemporaneous evidence,
which is absent in this case. Mere filing of an affidavit months/years
after the search cannot displace the evidentiary value of a statement
recorded under oath during search, especially when corroborative
documents and seized materials support the additions.
Avadh Kishore Das vs Ram Gopal And Ors. on 15 December, 1978
4.3 Relying on judicial precedents such as Bannalal Jat Constructions
Pvt Ltd (supra), Avadh Kishore Das vs. Ram Gopal in AIR 1979 SC 861,
Sudharshan Amin vs ACIT in [2013] 35 taxmann.com 370 (Gujarat), etc.
submitted that such ruling makes it clear that retraction cannot be
accepted unless supported by strong and contemporaneous evidence,
which is absent in this case. Mere filing of an affidavit months/years
after the search cannot displace the evidentiary value of a statement
recorded under oath during search, especially when corroborative
documents and seized materials support the additions.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Harjeev Aggarwal on 10 March, 2016
ITA No.399-410/Bang/2025
Page 19 of 33
7.3 Likewise, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Harjeev
Aggarwal reported in [2016] 70 taxmann.com 95 Ltd. has clarified that a
statement under section 132(4) of the Act, standing alone, does not by
itself constitute "incriminating material" for making additions. As such
the statement must be backed by some material found as a result of
search.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Khader Khan & Sons
reported in 300 ITR 157 (SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court) also
cautions that additions cannot rest merely on a bare confession devoid
of supporting material. Read together, these principles suggest that a
statement under section 132(4) or section 131(1) on oath carry
evidentiary value and can be acted upon but it is not conclusive and can
be displaced with credible, contemporaneous, verifiable evidence and
there must be incriminating material found in search corroborating the
statement. Thus, it is settled position of law that the additions cannot
rest only on a statement unless corroborated by incriminating material.
7.4 In the present case, self-made vouchers of cash purchases from
farmers or unregistered dealers were found. These vouchers were duly
recorded in the books of account, audited under section 44AB of the Act,
disclosed in VAT returns, and matched with sales. Hence, these are part
of regular books and not independent incriminating documents and such
self-generated vouchers, being already part of accounted records,
cannot be treated as incriminating material unless they reveal something
unrecorded or false. The department has not shown that these vouchers
were outside the books or that they represented fictitious entries.
7.5 It is also important to highlight that in wholesale agricultural
trade, it is common to purchase maize from farmers or small dealers
without formal invoices. The assessee-maintained vouchers for internal
control, which were found during search. These vouchers were recorded
.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs K. Selvaraj. (Cwt V.K. Selvaraj) on 17 December, 1997
12.2 We find merit in the submissions of the assessee. The provision of
section 132(4A) of the Act raises only a rebuttable presumption
regarding ownership of documents found, but the burden still lies on the
Revenue to prove that such entries represent actual taxable income. The
loose paper in question does not disclose the names of the parties,
nature of the transaction, or any confirmatory evidence of receipt. In the
absence of such material, the sheet is at best a dumb document. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 has held
that loose sheets by themselves, without corroboration, cannot be
treated as substantive evidence of undisclosed income.
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018
This principle has
been followed consistently in several rulings, including Common Cause v.
Union of India (394 ITR 220, SC) and various Hon'ble High Courts.
12.3 On the other hand, the Department's reliance on the assessee's
statement is misplaced. It is trite law that an admission during search
must be read as a whole. Here, the assessee clarified that the 12%
referred to was interest paid by him and not interest received.
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon & Co.
Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 27) has held that income accrues only when the
.