incriminating material

(→ for subcategory see right ) (for subcategory scroll Below)

Decision on Loose Papers found during the Search Section 132
The assessee requested to the Ld. AO to furnish the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act which was not provided and the assessee retracted the statement through an affidavit confirming that the search officers recorded contrary to the answer given by them and such statements are not voluntarily and not the reliable evidence as signed under pressure. Further there is no independent and cogent evidence to corroborate the statement.The moot question in these circumstances that whether these statements are voluntarily and can be considered as reliable evidence. ITAT Pune decided on 24 June, 2021 in the case DCIT vs Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali. Kindly click the link to get full order. FCA bpmundra 9314501680 [email protected].
Question: Q.The search in the premises of the assessees is on the basis of warrant issued in the name of B. The AO without applying his mind consciously and mandatorily had not stated in the satisfaction note that the seized documents belong to “other person” i.e; the assessee. The question is that without recording such a satisfaction can AO initiate proceedings against the “other persons i.e; the assessee” u/s 153C of the Act. ITAT Banglore Bench passed the order on Jul 30, 2021 in the case of ARSHAD ISPAT & ANR. vs. DCIT. Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153C
Section 153A, 153C, 132(4). If no incriminating material is found during search, no addition could be made in respect of the assessments that had become final. Statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. PCIT Vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF) & ORS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI on Feb 12, 2021. If any statement was to be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining to a person other than person searched (as referred to in Section 153A), then the only legal recourse available to the department was to proceed in terms of Section 153C of the Act by handing over the same to the AO who has jurisdiction over such person.
Section 132 When no incriminating material is shown by the Ld. AO therefore disallowance made only on ad-hoc basis is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. SHARUK PASSI & ANR. vs.DCIT ITAT Delhi order on Mar 19, 2020. IT-CASES-213-2020
Section 132,148 Cancelled receipt of Rs. 11 lacs showing total transaction of Rs. 61 lacs signed by Sanjeev on behalf of Romy was found and Romy surrendered Rs. 11 Lacs only. AO has not confronted contents of said receipts from S. Addition made of Rs. 50 Lacs is deleted in the absence of any other corroborative material before AO. ROMI LAL NANDA vs.ITO. ITAT Delhi order date 28.9.2020. IT-CASES-212-2020
Section 132, 153A What AO can do with item found in search is already disclosed in ITR and Balance Sheet submitted?IT-CASES-210-2020
क्या होगा जब किसी के यहां आयकर छापा पड़े और वहां पड़े किसी इनक्रिमिनेटिंग मैट्रियल पर आपका नाम हो? आईटीऐटी दिल्ली ने 28 अप्रैल 2020 को क्या फैसला दिया? IT-CASES-209-2020
दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने 1 अगस्त 2017 को फैसला देते हुए कहा कि आयकर छापे के दौरान धारा 132 4 में लिए गए स्टेटमेंट अपने आप में incriminating material नहीं है केवल इस आधार पर ना तो assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153 A हो सकता है और ना ही कोई एडिशन किया जा सकता है.PCIT vs.BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. IT-CASES-208-2020
Section 153C: Delhi High Court on 09.08.2019 held that since the search took place and Notice under Section 153C prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. Therefore, the onus was on the Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search belongs’ to the Assessee. In other words, it is not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that relates to’ the Assessee. Further the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence are not incriminating material and therefore jurisdiction can not be assumed by the AO under Section 153C of the Act. PCIT vs M/S. Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt.