Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 683 - ITAT DELHILinkedin Profiles to be taken as evidence or not - Determination of permanent establishment (PE) in India - Admissibility of additional evidence – Held that:- Section 254(1) provides that the Tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, "pass such orders therein as it thinks fit" - the Tribunal has all the powers vested in it which are vested in the income-tax authorities with reference to section 13 - The basic ingredient for exercising powers under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence is that Tribunal should come to the conclusion that a particular document would be necessary for consideration to enable it to pas orders or for any other substantial cause - The document can be brought to the notice of Tribunal by either party. At the time of admission of additional evidence the Tribunal is required to examine whether prima facie the evidence is relevant to the facts in issue or not - As per section 3 of the Evidence Act, one fact is set to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of Evidence Act relating to the relevancy of facts - The fact in issue u/s 3 of the Evidence Act means and includes any fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts the existence/ non-existence nature or extent of any right, liability or possibility asserted or denied in any suit or proceedings necessarily follows. Establishment of PE - Whether there is PE or not (which is primarily a factual finding to be recorded by Tribunal after due appreciation of facts on record) – Held that:- In course of survey while recording the statement of Chief Finance Officer Shri Chandan Jain a specific question was put to him to provide the names of employees of GEIPL who were working in the other GE group entities in India for which he answered that he will check and revert back - it cannot be said that AO had not made inquiries regarding the employees of GEIPL who were working for other GE entities - The assessee did not provide this information. Inordinate Delay In Filing Evidence – Held that:- The assessee cannot be permitted to first scuttle the investigations/ inquiries by not furnishing the necessary information and then claim benefit out of the same. At the end of the day it is the determination of correct taxability of assessee, which should guide the proper course of action. There is no gain saying that pitted against the technicalities and cause of justice, cause of justice should prevail. Whether linkdin profiles is hearsay evidence - Held that:- Section 60 of the Evidence Act requires that oral evidence must in all cases what-ever, be direct. It is well settled law that admission though not conclusive is binding and decisive on point unless it is successfully withdrawn or proved to be erroneous - The Linkedin profiles are in the nature of admissions of persons on their job profile. The data is in pubic domain. The strict Rules of Evidence are not applicable to income-tax proceedings. The evidences sought to be filed by Revenue are only supporting in nature and would assist in appreciating the facts in a more judicial manner. - Linkedin profiles filed by the department admitted. - Decided in favor of revenue.
|