Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 915 - HC - Income TaxIssue notice on substantial question of law nos.1 to 6 as follows:- "1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the provisions of Section 292-C of the I.T. Act, 1961, according to which the documents, books of accounts, money, bullion, jewellery and other valuable articles or things found in the possession or control of a person are presumed to be belonging to such persons and that the contents of such books of account are true. Accordingly, as per provisions of law, it was for the assessee to rebut the evidence found during the course of search and not for the AO to prove that the contents of documents were true and belonged to the assessee. 2. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the provisions of Section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which provides that the documents found in possession of asseessee would be presumed to be of the assessee and that the contents of such documents are true. Accordingly, in view of the documents referred to by AO, the contents were proved to be true by the AO. 3. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in relying on various decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ) which were delivered prior to insertion of Section 292C by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.10.1975, and accordingly did not represent the correct position of amended law. 4. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 53,74,850/- made u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts that the addition was made on the basis of documents seized during the course of search operation as per which the amount was found to be unexplained money received by the assessee on family settlement. 5. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 75,12,500/- on account of unaccounted cash payment for purchase of property at Gurgaon without appreciating the facts that notings in the seized document represented the unaccounted cash payment made to the seller of the property, over and above the amount mentioned in the sale deed. 6. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 2, 92, 387/- on account of rental income, without appreciating the fact that the property was let out, therefore, the AO added the difference in the rental income declared by the assessee."
|