Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 3010 2009 SLD 3010 (2009) 316 ITR 46
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL No. 345 OF 2007 MARCH 2, 2009
VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncoMtax

v.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi*

Law:

Section:

Section 158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income Where Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,56,450 by treating difference between valuation of property sold by assessee and that carried out at behest of Assessing Officer but Department had failed to collect any information or material to show that any consideration above and beyond stated sale consideration had changed hands, addition was not justified. [In favour of assessee] CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 224 CTR (Delhi) 79 The onus whether the assessee has received more consideration than what is stated in the documents of transfer rests on the revenue and in the absence of that burden being discharged, it would be legally impermissible to make any inferences against the assessee. Where the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,56,450 by treating the difference between the valuation of the property sold by the assessee and that; the valuation was carried out at his behest but the Department had failed to collect any information or material to show that any consideration above and beyond the stated sale consideration had changed hands and the Tribunal had found that the investments shown by the assessee stood fully corroborated by documentary evidence, the addition in question was not justified. Section 158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income Where amount in question in assessee's bank account on account of sale of property had been shown in return for assessment year 1996-97, that is, prior to issuance of notice under section 158BC and had been transacted through banking channels, addition thereof was not justified [In favour of assessee] CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 224 CTR (Delhi) 79 Where the amount in question in the assessee's bank account on account of sale of property had been shown in the return for the assessment year 1996-97, that is, prior to the issuance of notice under section 158BC and had been transacted through banking channels, and moreover, the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that the address and particulars of the purchaser had been furnished by the assessee but the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492