Case Law Details
Shri Shyam Sundar Dhanuka Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court held that it cannot act as an assessing officer and substitute their findings with its own in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized the significance of credible evidence in income tax cases and clarified its limited role in scrutinizing facts and evidence. The ruling came in response to a petition challenging an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, where the petitioner claimed that the assessing officer has proceeded merely on the basis of remarks “potential borrower/lender”.
HC observed that such claim is not correct since in the later part of the order assessing officer has clarified that on verification of the document the assessing officer has found credible evidence of actual borrowings and not potential in nature.
It has also been recorded by the assessing officer in the impugned assessment order that it is evident that the assessee has availed cash loan to the tune of Rs. 40,70,00,000/- through finance broker named Kaseras from different lenders namely Uma Shankar Kasera and it has also been recorded that there is a huge unexplained expenditure within the meaning of Section 69C of the Act and that the cash loan and repayment in cash comes within the crux of provision 269SS and 269T and other relevant provisions of penalty under the aforesaid Act.
HC find on perusal of the aforesaid impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act that the same is based on huge materials and evidence regarding the alleged transaction and that Court in exercise of Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction cannot act as an assessing officer and scrutinize those facts and evidence and substitute the same with its own.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
