Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018
13. It is trite law that no addition could be made merely on the basis of
presumption, conjectures or surmises. The ratio of decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI (77
Taxmann.com 245) would squarely apply to the facts of the case.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
8. The Ld. AO continued to allege that payments were made to
various persons including the assessee, the then Highway Minster
(represented by the abbreviation HM). The Ld. AO also concluded that
the denial by the assessee was not backed by any logic or evidence. In
the present case, the entries were found recorded in a systematic
manner and logically explained by the authors of the entries during the
course of search. Considering this fact, it was to be concluded that the
inference was not on the basis of surmises but on the basis of evidences
and the explanations furnished during the course of search proceedings.
We find that though the burden was on AO to prove its allegations, a
negative burden was casted on the assessee to establish that such
transactions had not happened and the assessee had not received the
impugned amount from the searched group. The same run contrary to
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs
ITO (131 ITR 597) as enumerated by us in preceding paragraph 5.12.
The Hon'ble Court held that onus of establishing that the conditions of
taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on
the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to
establish the negative.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 292C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax 14 vs Jasjit Singh on 26 September, 2023
15. The assessee, in its appeal, has taken a ground that Ld. CIT(A)
has erred in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. AO since AO
had failed to record the necessary and valid satisfaction mandated u/s
153C. The submissions of Ld. AR are that Ld. AO of the assessee has
not arrived at independent satisfaction and merely extracted the
satisfaction note drawn by Ld. AO of searched person. Another
argument assailing the assessment for AY 2015-16 is the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (155
Taxmann.com 155) wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Court as under:
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sanjay Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal ... on 27 January, 2022
The
ratio of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sant
Lal (118 Taxmann.com 432) would also apply wherein, in similar
circumstances, it was held that the entries found form the premises of a
third-party could not form the basis of addition when the revenue failed to
31
produce any other cogent material to link the assessee to the entries.
We find that similar is the situation in the present case. Therefore, the
conclusions drawn by Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, could not be faulted
with.