9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Harjeev Aggarwal [ 2016 (3) TMI 329 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi [ 2008 (9) TMI 525 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] various High Courts have held that addition based solely on statement later on retracted, without anything more, could not be justified in law. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. No Substantial question of law. - D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 22/2021 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2022 - HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Malani, Advocate for Mr. R.B. Mathur, Senior Advocate ORDER Heard on admission. Learned counsel for the appellant exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosing any material to the Assessee and without allowing him proper cross-examination, such undisclosed and unverified material could be taken into consideration for the purposes of addition. The other submission that the Tribunal interfered with the order of addition without due consideration that no prudent investor would invest in companies in which the assessee hadinvested, if we may say so, is essentially in the realm of appreciation of facts and circumstances and does not by itself a substantial question of law. It is essentially a matter relating to assessment of particular circumstance. As far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant that statement recorded under Section 132 (4) of the I.T. Act by itself, without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s wrong inferences drawn from proved facts by erroneous application of law or where the Tribunal has wrongly cast the burden of proof . The argument advanced on the basis of the principle propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra), does not apply to the facts of the present case at all. The Tribunal s findings are based on material placed on record. The aspect of human probability, in the present case, only goes against the Revenue because in the present case, a raid was conducted and in that process, statement is said to have been recorded under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, which was, later on, retracted by the Assessee. In a situation like this, where the office premises are sealed for many days and durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
