Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 229

ssee’s brother. Save and except the said papers, the Assessing Officer did not bring any corroborative material to prove that the assessee and his other family members had advanced the said amount to K.K.Mahipal. In order to saddle the assessee with such addition of income, in our view, the materials sought to be relied on have to be corroborated. In the instant case, it was neither corroborated nor the assessee, at any stage of the proceedings, was confronted with the said seized documents. - Decided against the revenue.

Addition of capital gains received on surrender of tenancy right under section 55(2)(a) - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- As found by the Tribunal, in view of section 158BB in the absence of any corrobo .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ppellate Tribunal deleting the addition of capital gains of ₹ 25,00,000/- received on surrender of tenancy right under section 55(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, is perverse on facts and erroneous in law? This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, (for short the Act ) at the instance of the Revenue is directed against an order dated 8th October, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal D Bench, Kolkata in Income Tax Appeal bearing IT (SS) A. No.33/Kol/2000 for the block assessment period from 1st April, 1987 to 12th December, 1997 whereby the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. The facts, which are relevant for consideration, are as under:- On 12th December, 1997 there was a search and seizure under sec .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

as unexplained investment of K.K.Mahipal and b) with regard to the addition of ₹ 25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as capital gain being the amount received from the surrender of tenancy to the landlord, as noted. The CIT(A) deleted the said two additions which were confirmed by the Tribunal. The Revenue being aggrieved by the said deletions have preferred the instant appeal. So far as the first question is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition of ₹ 8,45,247 merely on the basis of papers seized from the possession of K.K.Mahipal, the assessee s brother. Save and except the said papers, the Assessing Officer did not bring any corroborative material to prove that the assessee and his other famil .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ence. Unless it is relatable to some evidence, a mere statement cannot be the basis for computation. As found by the Tribunal, in view of section 158BB in the absence of any corroborative evidence the addition cannot be made on the basis of presumption as correctly contended by Mr.Banerjee, the learned advocate for the respondent. The judgement in Dinesh B.Parikh v. Commissioner of Income-tax : (2012) 347 ITR 420 (Cal) relied on by Mr. Agarwal is distinguishable on facts as therein the appellant s statement was corroborated by the paper seized which is lacking in the case in hand. The judgement in CIT vs. Ashim Krishna Mondal : (2004) 270 ITR 160 (Cal) very succinctly lays down the principle of law that computation is different from estimat .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||