Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shaily Prince Goyal Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA 4271/Mum/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/05/2024
Related Assessment Year : 2013-14
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Shaily Prince Goyal Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai decided in favor of Shaily Prince Goyal against the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented and the procedures followed by the revenue authorities, concluding that the additions made to the assessee’s income were unjustified.

The case of Shaily Prince Goyal Vs ITO centers on the reopening of the assessment based solely on information from the Investigation Department. The Directors of the company involved were verified by the Revenue authority, and statements were recorded. However, the assessee failed to establish a link between the involved persons and the sale of shares. Despite providing relevant documents, such as registers, bank statements, demat accounts, and bill copies, the veracity of these documents was never questioned by the authorities.

During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Pr.CIT-V, Kolkata Vs. Swati Bajaj. In contrast, the assessee’s representative referred to the decision of the ITAT D-Bench, Mumbai, in DCIT Central Circle-6(2) vs. Shri Dilip B. Jiwrajka. The tribunal noted that in the Swati Bajaj case, the Calcutta High Court had criticized the tribunal for disposing of numerous appeals without considering the specific facts of each case. It emphasized the importance of examining facts to ensure consistent decision-making.

The tribunal observed that in Shaily Prince Goyal’s case, a specific request was made for the investigation report and statements recorded from different persons. The assessee had rebutted the details provided by the AO and sought cross-examination. The tribunal highlighted that direct, irrefutable evidence was available to the AO, and ignoring these in favor of circumstantial evidence was unjustified.

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


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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Search Post by Date
July 2024