Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.46 seconds)
Naresh K. Pafauja vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 July, 2007 cites

Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956

Now, an affidavit is a piece of evidence, which, along with other material on record, has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal before arriving at a finding. The decisions relied on by the assessee are distinguishable on facts. These decisions lay down that when there is nomaterial on record to disprove the veracity of a statement made in an affidavit, a finding arrived at ignoring that statement, would be a, finding based on no evidence or a finding which no person acting judicially could have arrived at. In Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181, the Supreme court found that the finding of the Tribunal was a pure surmiseand had no basis on the evidence. The Supreme Court found that the cash book of the assessee was accepted, that the entries therein were not challenged and no further documents or vouchers in relation to these entries were called for nor was, the presence of the deponents of affidavits considered necessary by either party. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that there was no material whatsoever to justify the finding of the Tribunal. The decision in (1956) 30 ITR 181, cannot be construed to lay down the proposition that unless the deponents arecross, examined, the affidavits cannot be rejected. That decision lays down that if there is no material whatsoever on record for doubting the veracity of the statements made in the affidavits and if the deponent shave also not been subjected to cross-examination for bringing out the falsity of their statements, then the Tribunal would not be justified indoubting the correctness of the statements made by the deponents in the affidavits. The finding arrived, at in such a case would, according to the Supreme Court, be a finding based on pure surmise, having no basis in evidence. In the instant case, however, there was material on record which was considered by the Tribunal along with the affidavits and the Tribunal found that no reliance could be placed on the affidavits, statement by a deponent can be held to be unreliable by the Tribunal either on the basis of cross-examination of the deponent or by reference to other material on record leading to the inference that the statement made in the affidavit, cannot be held to be true.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 335 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Mohanlal P. Jain And Ors. on 26 August, 1975

In P. Mohankala's case (supra) the assessee had received foreign gifts from one common donor. The payments were made by instruments issued by foreign banks and credited to the respective account of the assessee by negotiation through a bank in India. Most of the cheques, in that case, sent from abroad were drawn on the Citibank, N.A. Singapore. The assessing officer held that the gifts though apparent were not real and accordingly treated all those amounts, which were credited in the account books of the assessee as their income applying Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of the sums found credited in his books is not satisfactory, there is prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz-, the receipt of money and that the burden is on the assessee to rebut the same, and, if he fails to rebut it, it can be held against the assessee that it was receipt of an income nature. The Hon'ble court further observed: "May be the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequence."
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 148 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next