Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs Dcit, Jaipur on 20 December, 2017
The ld AR has also relied
upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Kamakshi
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra) wherein the Coordinate Bench has
deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the
said addition was made on the basis of statement of a third person
without giving a opportunity of cross examination and in absence of any
documentary and independent evidence, such addition based on the
statement of third party without cross examination is not sustainable. In
the case in hand, we find that the addition is not based merely on the
statement but the documentary evidence in the shape of agreement
dated 11/05/2005, the bank statement of the sale deeds showing
deposits of cash on the dates of the execution of the agreement as well
as sale deeds and further the part consideration paid through cheque find
mentioned in the agreement to sell as well as in sale deed established the
fact of existence of the said agreement between the parties.
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. K.C. Agnes And Ors. on 22 January, 2003
In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes 128
Taxman 848 (Ker.). The ld. AR has further contended that in absence of
registration of the alleged agreement, it would not confer any title or any
interest in the immovable property, therefore, the registered sale deed
cannot be disputed by placing reliance on such photo copy of
unregistered agreement, which is not signed by the assessee. Further the
Assessing Officer has relied upon the statements recorded of various
persons including the sellers without giving an opportunity of cross
examination to the assessee. The ld AR has referred to the letter dated
24/2/2014 and 06/3/2014 filed by the assessee during the assessment
proceedings and submitted that the assessee has demanded the cross
examination of the persons whose statements were proposed to be relied
upon by the assessee for making the addition.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015
However, the Assessing
5 ITA 1047/JP/2017_
Om Plantation Vs ITO
Officer did not grant the opportunity of cross examination to the assessee
and therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE passed in Civil Appeal No.
4228 of 2006 judgment dated 02/09/2015, the addition made in violation
of principles of natural justice is not sustainable. The second leg of
argument advances by the ld AR that this is the first year of the assessee
firm after its constitution and therefore, in absence of any source of
income in the hands of the assessee firm, no addition U/s 69 of the Act
can be made in the hands of the assessee. In support of his contention,
he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of CITP.K. Noorjehan 237 ITR 570 and submitted that the word "may"
used in the Section 69 cannot be read as "shall" and therefore, a
discretion is conferred on the Assessing Officer in the matter of treating
the source of investment which has not been satisfactory explained by the
assessee as income of the assessee. The ITO is not obliged to treat such
source of investment as income in every case where explanation offered
by the assessee is not found to be satisfactory. The ld AR has thus,
contended that when the assessee is having no source of income in the
year under consideration then the addition U/s 68 of the Act cannot be
made in the hands of the assessee.
1