COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
CORAM: | D. Manmohan VP, Sanjay Arora (AM) |
SECTION(S): | 132, 68, 69 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | Black Money, unaccounted income |
COUNSEL: | - |
DATE: | February 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | March 11, 2016 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2001-02 to 2007-08 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
S. 68/ 69/69A: Law relating to assessment of undisclosed income, based on disputed documents found in the premises of the assessee during search explained. Also, the law on admission of additional evidence sourced from foreign countries, onus of the assessee and onus of the revenue and law on 'telescoping' of additions also explained |
The Revenue, to proceed against the assessee, must have definite information with regard to the assessee being in possession of monies or holding investment. This is in view of the salutary principle of common law jurisprudence, embodied u/s.110 of the Evidence Act, i.e., that possession implies ownership, so that the onus of proving that the possessor is not the owner is on the person so alleging. This principle is also applicable to tax proceedings, incorporated in the Act (under Chapter VI), so that the principle would be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfies its conditions. The expression ‘income’ under the Act, a term of wide import, is applicable to section 69A, among others, of the Act (refer: Chuharmal vs. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC)). The assessee, claiming to have no foreign bank accounts, concedes subsequently (on the basis of a report by UBS AG, Zurich – which has been taken as part of the record) to have a limited banking relationship with UBS AG, Zurich. The said report, for the reasons afore-discussed, cannot be considered as completely reliable.
Recent Comments