Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Kishorbhai Bhagabhai Mistry Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rangpuja Building

2017 (9) TMI 672 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Addition u/s 69A - unexplained source of cash - assessee had sent a cash to one Riyaz Lokhandwala through Angadia firm namely M/s. Rameshkumar Ambalal and Company which was allegedly misappropriated by the employee of the Angadia - Held that:- Learned counsel for the appellant may be correct in contending that the statement of a person recorded by the police authority under section 161 of Cr.P.C would have limited utility. Had this statement been the sole basis for making the addition, we would .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a false case of the ownership of the amount. In fact the entire issue came to light only when the amount was allegedly misappropriated by the employee of the Angadia which forced the Angadia to file a police complaint. The fact that the FIR was filed at a police station in Mumbai would further suggest that the amount was actually in transit as per the instruction of the sender and would have been misappropriated after it reached Mumbai. - Decided against assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 649 of 2017 - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

facts are that the appellant - assessee had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2006-07. The return was taken in scrutiny. During scrutiny assessment, it was found that the assessee had sent a cash amount of ₹ 15,06,500/- on 20.05.2005 to one Riyaz Lokhandwala through Angadia firm namely M/s. Rameshkumar Ambalal and Company. The amount was allegedly misappropriated by the employee of the Angadia who had filed a police complaint before the V.P Road Police Station, Mumbai on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for delivery to Riyaz Lokhandwala at Mumbai. He also admitted that the Company had issued two receipts of ₹ 8,06,500/- and ₹ 7,00,000/- to the assessee. He could produce one of them on record. 4. The Assessing Officer also noted that statement of the appellant was recorded on 24.05.2005 in which also he had owned up the said amount. The Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with such materials by issuing a notice dated 26.12.2008. In response to the notice, the assessee appeared .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


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

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version