|
III. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. CIT Vs. Sunil Aggarwal, I.T.A. No. 224/2003, Date of Order: 02.11.2015, High Court of Delhi
Whether
the ITAT is correct while deleting the addition of Rs.86 lakhs on
account of cash seized from one of the employees of the assessee, which
was surrendered during statement recorded u/s 132(4), but later on
retracted?
Held Yes
That a
statement under Section 132(4) of the Act carries much greater weight
than the statement made under Section 133A of the Act, a retracted
statement under Section 132(4) of the Act would require some
corroborative material for the AO to proceed to make additions on the
basis of such statement. Of course, where the retraction is not for any
convincing reason, or where it is not shown by the Assessee that he was
under some coercion to make the statement in the first place, or where
the retraction is not followed by the Assessee producing material to
substantiate his defence, the AO might be justified in make additions on
the basis of the retracted statement.
In the
present case, the Assessee had an explanation for not retracting the
statement earlier. He also furnished an explanation for the cash that
was found in the hands of his employee and this was verifiable from the
books of accounts. In the circumstances, it was unsafe for the AO to
proceed to make additions solely on the basis of the statement made
under Section 132(4) of the Act, which was subsequently retracted.
Consequently, the Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in the
conclusion reached by the ITAT that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs to the
income of the Assessee was not justified.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., I.T.A. No. 164/2015, Date of Order: 30.10.2015, High Court of Delhi
Whether
the period of assessment covered u/s 153C shall be reckoned from the
date of handing over of books of accounts or other search material to
the AO of relevant person u/s 153C or the date of conclusion of search
in case of person searched?
In terms
of proviso to Section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the
search under the second proviso to Section 153A of the Act has to be
construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to
the Assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the AO
having jurisdiction to assess the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by
virtue of Section 153C(1) of the Act, would have to be in accordance
with Section 153A of the Act and the reference to the date of search
would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of
satisfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which
assessments/reassessments could be made under Section 153C of the Act
would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing
over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now