Case Law Details
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
It is relevant to state that AO in his remand report dated 10.10.2016 did not dispute the veracity of the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and further learned CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences purely on technical ground which is wholly unwarranted in law. In fact, additional evidences were computerized documents and have evidentiary value. It is submitted that it is settled law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It is further submitted that it is also settled law that the rigor of the rule of evidence contained in the Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income Tax Act. In such circumstances, the additional evidences furnished by the appellant and rejected by the learned CIT(A) which merely supports the claim of the appellant that the investors had sufficient creditworthiness is wholly misconceived.
Read Hon’ble Supreme Court Order on Above
Sec 68 No additions if assessee proves identity of share applicants: SC
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
“Substantial justice” – a brand new concept (?) by way of UPDATING the overall thinking, so far being pursued and adopted by the REVENUE; whch only leads to procrastination of the entire process with undue emphasis on ‘technicalities’ /hyper…..; mIndless of the cost to the Exchequer , and from all angles- at the cost of the -easy target – ‘taxpayers’ monies ?!
Does this not have an inteded or untended countervailing effect on the ongoing tall talk about the need for ‘reforms’ through- ‘SIMPLIFICATION’ ?!