It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. If the assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative. Reliance can be placed in this respect on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of “DCIT vs. Shree G. Selva Kumar” in ITA No.868/Bang/2009 decided on 22.10.10 and another case in the case of “Aarti Raman vs. DCIT” in ITA No.245/Bang/2012 decided on 05.10.12.
Related Posts:
- CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
- Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) thus was clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It was specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability in the treaty partner jurisdiction will not take it out of the ambit of taxable income of…
- Kamal Galani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is the case of the Ld. AO that account with HSBC bank , Geneva is opened by resident Indian and black money earned by such resident Indian has been stashed abroad without paying taxes/disclosing income in India. But, fact remains that in the instant case, the account was opened…
- Hemant M Mehta HUF vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is clear from the above decisions that in case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition is required to be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases
- Bank Of India vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, our entire focus was on whether these foreign tax credits could be allowed even when such tax credits lead to a situation in which taxes paid abroad could be refunded in India, but that must not be construed to mean that, as a corollary to our…
- ACIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) That is a classic case of a subtle unilateral treaty override. While, in India, the expression 'treaty override' is often loosely used for the situations where the provisions of tax treaty prevails over any inconsistent provisions of domestic law, this approach seems to be at variance with the international practices…
It is desirable to allow for 5% income variations at the time of 26AS matching as often there are spill overs for acccounting method or accounting treatments or for other reasons.
CBDT should make a note of this judgement as in this case the assessee reconciled major portion of the amount but could not reconcile the amount of Rs.4,49,440/- which is barely 3% of the total receipts which lead to the addition and now once again the case is restored to the AO by the ITAT for second round of verification. This could have been avoidable had there been an instruction from the board to allow for a certain percentage for mismatch with 26AS.
true, the judgements time and again said but why AOs do show that there is some other consideration,might be; if you harass the tax payer AO may get some benefit personally or in collusion with some bad mrality CAs who try to earn more income both for themselves as also to the AOs, not indeed any thing meaningful to the Revenue except cutting in Revenue collections by unnecessary legal fees as sometimes panel advocates either fail to say correct legal factum position or join hands with bad elements, that way common taxpayer is affected please!
Gopal Nathani need CBDT nod by its circular after all errors are universal, as nothing is indeed foolproof,so he is right!
Gopal Nathani need CBDT nod by its circular after all errors are universal, as nothing is indeed foolproof,so he is right!