Case Law Details
Dilipkumar P. Chheda Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
In so far the present case is concerned, here also the additions have been made primarily on the basis of the statement made by Shri. Nilesh Bharani and also on the basis of certain entries in the telephone diary. However, we find from the materials on record that though summons was issued to Shri. Nilesh Bharani for cross-examination by the petitioner, Shri. Nilesh Bharani did not appear on the date fixed and therefore he could not be cross-examined. Thus, we are prima-facie of the view that reliance placed on such uncorroborated and untested statement of Shri. Nilesh Bharani while making the additions to the income of the petitioner is highly questionable, that too, when for the previous assessment year i.e., the assessment year 2011-12 he had retracted the statement. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner does not have a good prima-facie case on merit. That apart, petitioner has pleaded financial hardship to meet the demand even to the extent of 20%.
Considering the above and to maintain parity, we direct that till disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the demand raised pursuant to the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 shall be kept in abeyance. However, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this order. We make it clear that observations made in this order are only for considering the prayer for stay and the same should not in any manner be construed as final observations or findings on merit.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Heard Mr. Devendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel revenue for the respondents.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
