Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 378 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - survey u/s 133A - Held that:- It is the assessee, who has to prove the contents are false or incorrect. In this case the assessee has not discharged it’s burden. The ld. A.R further argued that the AO has not given the survey statement which was sought by them on 14/02/2011 and 21/02/2011. It is settled issue that during the pendency investigation the statements would not be supplied to the assessee and the copies will be given when the evidences are used against the assessee. This view is supported by the Hon’ble Madras High court judgement in the case of Advantage Strategic Consulting (P.) Ltd [2016 (7) TMI 939 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. In this case neither the assessee nor the DR could inform us when the copies of statements were supplied to the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the case should be remitted back to the file of the A.O. to give sufficient opportunity to the assessee to prove his case of excess payment and the contents recorded in the seized material was incorrect. The assessee should produce Mr. B. Babujee and B. Srinivas with relevant evidences to prove the hand writing and explain the contents of noting in full. The A.O. is directed to supply the copies of statements recorded and the impounded material and allow the assessee to explain the case, and also examine both Mr. B. Babujee and B. Srinivas in detail and decide the issue afresh on merits. Accordingly the assessment is set aside with direction to re do the same de novo.
|