Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › DCIT vs. M/s Premsons (ITAT Mumbai)

DCIT vs. M/s Premsons (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 8, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (Premsons Retraction of Confession)

Even confessed undisclosed income cannot be assessed

Where during a survey, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 29 lakhs towards “any other discrepancy” but later retracted from the same and the question arose whether the assessee could be assessed despite the said retraction, HELD:

(a) While conducting a survey u/s 133A the department has no power to examine any person on oath. Consequently, such a statement has no evidentiary value and no addition can be made solely on the basis of such statement;

(b) The CBDT is not oblivious of the practice of obtaining forced confessions and accordingly Circular dated 10.3.2003 makes it clear that no attempt should be made to obtain confessions of undisclosed income;

(c) On facts, as there was no other material to show undisclosed income nor were there any ‘discrepancies’ the addition could not be sustained.

See Also: Vinod Solanki vs. UOI (Supreme Court) (law on retraction of confessions) and Bhuvanendra 303 ITR 235 (Mad.)

Related Posts:

  • DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
  • DCIT vs. Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Even amendment to section 68 brought by Finance Act, 2012 does not refer to valuation. The insertion of the proviso to section 68 of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 casts an additional onus on the closely held companies to prove source in the shareholders subscribing to the shares of…
  • DCIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee pursuant to the terms of the "agreement‟ had only received standard facilities i.e bandwith services from RJIPL. In fact, as observed by the CIT(A), the assessee only had an access to services and did not have any access to any equipment deployed by RJIPL for providing the bandwith…
  • DCIT vs. Comet Investment Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The broker, through whom the assessee carried on share transactions, were also not imposed any penalty. No co-relation between the assessee on the one hand and the other parties on the other hand has been brought on record to co-relate that the parties to whom the alleged profits or loss…
  • Concept Communication Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Retraction being on affidavit was legal and valid and was not belated. Further retraction was supported by explanation of impounded documents to the Survey team. The impounded document did not contain any information which was not recorded in the books of accounts. Hence, in view of retraction and such retraction…
  • DCIT vs. Kargwal Products P. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The assessment was processed under section 143(1). The assessment was reopened on 29.03.2014 without four year from the end of relevant Assessment Year. We have noted that the Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned in the reasons recorded that any tangible material either from assessment record or from other source has come…

Related Judgements

  1. ITO vs. Ellora Silk Mills (ITAT Mumbai) 

    (i) Where the AO had accepted in the past that the warehousing charges received by the assessee was business income, he was not justified in reopening the assessment to assess the charges as property income in the absense of any … ITO vs. Ellora Silk Mills (ITAT Mumbai)…
  2. Amway India vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    (i) The question whether expenditure is on capital or revenue account should be decided from the practical and business view point and in accordance with sound accountancy principles. The three tests applied to decide the nature of expenditure are the … Amway India vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special…
  3. Development Consultants vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) 

    Where the assessee entered into “international transactions” with “associated enterprises” and the AO made adjustments to the arms length price, held, deleting the adjustments that:

    (i) In order to determine the most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price, it is first necessary to select the ‘tested party’ and…
  4. Taj Lands End vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    It is not mandatory for an asseessee to claim depreciation prior to the insertion of Explanation 5 to s. 32. Vahid Paper Converter vs. ITO 100 TTJ 532 (Ahd) (SB) distinguished.
    Read more ›
  5. ITO vs. Lotia Co.op Hsg. Soc. (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee was a co.op society and it and its members entered into a development agreement with a builder pursuant to which Tranferable Development Rights (TDR) entitled to be received under the Development Control Regulations was assigned to the developer for the repairs and redevelopment of the…