COURT: | ITAT Delhi |
CORAM: | Bhavnesh Saini (JM), L. P. Sahu (AM) |
SECTION(S): | 68 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | bogus share capital, bogus share premium, cross examination, principles of natural justice, unexplained cash credit |
COUNSEL: | Prakash Chand Yadav |
DATE: | October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | October 10, 2018 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2004-05 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Failure by the AO to offer cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon means that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Dept's plea for a remand is not acceptable if the assessee has discharged primary onus (Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169 (Del) & Jansampark Advertising 375 ITR 373 (Del) distinguished). Paradise Inland 98 CCH 0417 followed |
The assessee was supplied with the seized material at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and assessee sought opportunity to cross examine these persons for rebuttal of the allegation. However, the AO did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these persons on behalf of assessee to find out the truth. Therefore, such statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and of Bombay High Court in case of Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd
Recent Comments