9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Constructive possession and control under section 132(4). 3. Scope and ambit of section 132(4). 4. Prospective nature of the Explanation to section 132(4). 5. Material basis for Tribunal's findings on authorized dealers. 6. Non-consideration of relevant material by the Tribunal. 7. Binding nature of the managing director's statement on the assessee-company. 8. Acceptance of trade practice claims without verification. 9. Burden of examining persons in incriminating material. 10. Justification of commission expenditure. 11. Majority view of the Tribunal. Summary: Questions Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10: The issues raised are purely factual. The findings of the Appellate Tribunal are based on the material on record and a correct appreciation of evidence. These questions do not raise any question of law requiring reference u/s 256(2) of the Act. Question No. 11: The contention that the Third Member's order is unsustainable in law was not supported by any argument. The Third Member answered the reference with sound and valid reasons, agreeing with the Accountant Member. The majority view was in favor of the assessee, and the consolidated order was passed in accordance with section 255(4) of the Act. No question of law is involved. Questions Nos. 1 to 3: The issue revolves around section 132(4) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the statement of the managing director recorded u/s 132(4) does not have any evidentiary value as no unaccounted money or incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal's finding is based on the well-established rule of evidence that mere confessional statements without documentary proof shall not be used in evidence. No question of law arises from this issue. Question No. 4: The Explanation to section 132(4) was introduced with effect from April 1, 1989, and is procedural in nature. However, the Tribunal found that the statements have no evidentiary value as they are not supported by documentary proof. Therefore, the question of the Explanation's retrospective effect is academic and does not deserve reference. Question No. 7: This question is interconnected with questions Nos. 1 to 4. Since the statement of the managing director is found to be inadmissible in evidence, the question of whether it binds the assessee becomes irrelevant. This question does not deserve reference. Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal's findings are not perverse and are based on a qualitative and satisfactory appreciation of evidence. The contentions raised by the Revenue are untenable. The I.T.C. is rejected as no question of law is found in any of the questions formulated by the Revenue. No costs.
|
