| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
March 8, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
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…
- Renu T Tharani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee before us is closely involved with the transaction and it is inconceivable that the assessee will have no direct knowledge of the owners of the underlying company and settlors of the trust which has her, as she herself puts it, as beneficiary of such a huge amount. This…
- ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The principle emerging out of this analysis of legal position is that when an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection. Viewed thus, this is…
- Narang Access Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) While valuing the share premium and to determine the fair market value of shares in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the assessee has option for adoption of valuation method and the basis of valuation has to be DCF method. The Hon’ble Bombay High court in Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd…
- Carestream Health Inc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The ld DR vehemently argued that the percentage of shareholding remains the same because reduction of shares had happened for all shareholders. We find that the ld DR relied on para 24 of the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in 133 ITD 1 supra to support his proposition.…
- Celltick Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Indian subsidiary of the assessee had for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y 2019-20 entered into an "APA‟ with the CBDT. As is discernible from the "APA‟, the functions of the subsidiary company inter alia included "marketing and sale of various software solutions" of the assessee company. As per the "APA‟…
Recent Comments