Home ›

Search Results For: Devendra Jain

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 31, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): The Writ Petition to challenge the ITAT's order dismissing the MA does not appear to be bonafide. In the garb of the MA, the Petitioner sought review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible in law. Costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the Petitioner

In the instant case, what we notice is that not only was there no mistake apparent from the record but in the garb of the Misc. Application, petitioner had sought for review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible in law. In our view, Writ Petition does not appear to be bonafide

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 20, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 25, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 226(3): Undue haste in recovery of disputed demands by issue of s. 226(3) garnishee notices, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited the disposal of the stay petition. Interim stay granted and garnishee proceedings placed under suspension till the disposal of the stay petition

We have noted that the hearing of stay petition was concluded, as per information available to us, on 17th January 2020, but the order thereon has not been passed as yet since one of the Members constituting coram of the bench has gone on tour to Delhi benches due to unavoidable official exigencies. In the meantime, however, the revenue authorities have already issued garnishee notices, under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the bankers of the assessee on 17th January 2020 itself. Such an undue haste in recovery of the disputed demands, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited for the disposal of the stay petition.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C Bogus Purchases (100% disallowance confirmed): The right of cross-examination is not absolute. No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of cross examination if the assessee has not discharged the primary onus. The fact that purchase bills are produced and payment is made through banking channels is not sufficient if the other evidence is lacking

No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of opportunity of cross examination by the authorities below as right of cross examination is not absolute as in the instant case even primary onus that fell on the assessee did not stood discharged. Had assessee discharged its primary onus, but still the authorities proceed to prejudice assessee based solely on the incriminating statements/affidavits of third parties recorded at the back of the assessee, the right of the assessee to cross examine these third parties will become absolute. It is not a case that the authorities below have merely/solely relied on the statement/affidavit of third parties namely hawala dealers recorded at the back of the assessee to cause prejudice to the assessee rather primary onus that lay on the assessee was not discharged by the assessee

Read more ›