Negligent Assessee should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high

By TG Team Income Tax Judiciary December 1, 2011

TaxGuru Citation: 2011 taxguru.in 1150
Case Name: The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Courts: All High Courts, Delhi High Court

Already Upgraded? Log in.

CIT Vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. (Delhi HC) – Tribunal noticed that there were two coursed open to it. First course was to draw an adverse inference against the assessee and second course was to restore the matter back to the AO. It chose second course only on the ground that the quantum of amount involved was high, that is hardly a ground or justification for restoring and giving premium to the assessee for its negligence.

In fact, it is a clear case where adverse inference should have been drawn. When the Tribunal itself concluded that the assessee was non-cooperative, it can naturally be safely concluded that the assessee did not want to produce evidence, as it would have exposed that the transactions in question were not genuine and fraudulent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is a legal error committed by the Tribunal, as in a case like this, only one course of action is presumed, viz., to draw adverse inference.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

ITA No. 798 of 2009

Decision Delivered On: 2^ndSeptember, 2011

The Commissioner of Income Tax

Versus

Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd.

ORDER

A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the validity of remand and/ or setting aside the order of Income Tax Authorities by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ^„the Tribunal^‟) whereby the assessee has been given opportunity for the fifth time to make up the lacuna/fill in the evidence in this case to ^„meet the ends of justice^‟.