Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2279 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTAddition u/s 68 - unexplained bank deposit - HELD THAT:- Misplaced apprehension of the Assessing Authority that since confirmations were in the same handwriting, therefore, they were not believable is a typical pro-revenue approach, without any foundation. The agriculturists most of whom might have been illiterates, could not have been expected to write their own confirmations to be produced before the Assessing Authority, but as the witnesses they could have been certainly summoned by the Assessing Authority for verifying the written confirmations given by them and it is only thereafter that the Assessing Authority could have confirmed the fact as to whether the written confirmations given by them were genuine or fake. As far as the evidence collected through the Tahsildar under Section 133(6) of the Act is concerned also, we do not find that the said exparte evidence collected by the Assessing Authority has been confronted to the assessee or the Agriculturists in question. Thus, the whole process of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Authority in the present case does not have any foundational legs to stand upon. Revenue authority even though bestowed with the job to collect revenue in accordance with law cannot act arbitrarily and on a mere guess work make the additions in the declared income of the assessee. The reasonable factual enquiry in the matter, only can give support to their findings of facts, which are the subject matter of further scrutiny by the appellate forums and also by the constitutional Courts. The very foundation of assessment enquiry conducted by the Assessing Authority does not inspire any confidence in the present case and the entire assessment has to fall to the ground. We are of the opinion that the first appellate authority after having looked into the evidence on record was justified in granting the relief to the assessee, but Tribunal without assigning any cogent reasons has taken a different view of the matter and has rendered a finding of fact, which is bad and perverse to that extent. The said finding, therefore, cannot be sustained and the order of the Tribunal, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. The substantial question is thus answered in the favour of assessee.
|