Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 25(2) Vs Tarla R Shah (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 5295/Mum/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/02/2016
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
It is been held that the addition made merely on the basis of observations by Sales Tax Department and without conducting any independent inquiry specially when the assessee has discharged his primary onus by showing the books of account and payment by way of account payee cheques and producing bills and vouchers for sales of goods, the addition could not be sustained. The assessee was also not given a copy of the statements recorded from the hawala operators and therefore no cross-examination could be asked by the assessee which is also against the equity and the principle of natural justice as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andman Timber Industries (supra). Moreover, the assessee was not named principle beneficiary by any of the suppliers of goods to be purchased from hawala entries and therefore it would be unreasonable to infer that the assessee might have availed the benefit of hawala transactions.

Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:-

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.05.2013 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (hereinafter called as the CIT(A) ) for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)erred in deleting the addition of Rs 87,24,259 which was made by invoking the provisions section 69C of the I. T. Act by treating the purchase are genuine.”

2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 14,36,653 which was made by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I. T. Act by treating the purchase are genuine without appreciating the fact that the notices u/s 133(6) issued to the parties were returned unnerved as addressee was not available at the given address.”

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031