COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
CORAM: | Amit Shukla (JM), R. C. Sharma (AM), Saktijit Dey (JM) |
SECTION(S): | 143(3), 144, 145(2) |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | estimate, preponderance of probability, Rejection of books of account |
COUNSEL: | Vinod Kumar Bindal |
DATE: | March 7, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | August 9, 2017 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 1984-85 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Imp law on theory of ‘preponderance of probability’ and to what extent it can be used to make adverse inferences and estimates of undisclosed income, the necessity of tangible material, the rejection of books of account and the scope of a best judgement assessment u/s 145(2) explained |
In situations like this case, one may fall into realm of “preponderance of probability” where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. But the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected. Here in this case the material facts strongly indicate a probability that the wholesale buyers had collected the premium money for spending it on advertisement and other expenses and it was their liability as per their mutual understanding with the aseessee. Another very strong probable factor is that the entire scheme of “twin branding” and collection of premium was so designed that assessee company need not incur advertisement expenses and the responsibility for sales promotion and advertisement lies wholly upon wholesale buyers who will borne out these expenses from alleged collection of premium. The probable factors could have gone against the assessee only if there would have been some evidence found from several searches either conducted by DRI or by the department that Assessee Company was beneficiary of any such accounts. At least something would have been unearthed from such global level investigation by two Central Government authorities
Recent Comments