| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1887 2015 SLD 1887 (2015) 375 ITR 526 |
Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION No. 2526 OF 2010, JANUARY 7, 2015
M.S. SANKLECHA AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
Ajay R. Singh and Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav for the Petitioner
WRIT PETITION No. 2526 OF 2010, JANUARY 7, 2015
M.S. SANKLECHA AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
Ajay R. Singh and Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav for the Petitioner
Naresh K. Pahuja
VS
Law:
Section:
Section 68, read with section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (gift) - Assessment year 1995-96 - Assessing Officer made addition in income of assessee as income from undisclosed sources holding that gifts received by assessee from one 'K' were not genuine - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal upheld findings of Assessing Officer - On rectification application, Tribunal held that there was no error apparent on record after recording that mere routing of a gift through a banking channel would not by itself establish that gift was genuine - Whether, therefore, finding of facts recorded by Tribunal could not be interfered with - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of revenue] FACTS â– The Assessing Officer made addition in the income of assessee as income from undisclosed sources holding that gifts received by the assessee from one 'K' were not genuine. â– On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer. â– On assessee's application for rectification, the assessee submitted that the Tribunal passed its order without having giving the assessee any notice of the same and also statement of the donor was not considered. The Tribunal did not satisfied with submission and confirmed the orders of the lower authorities. â– On writ: HELD The Tribunal is directed only to consider statement of the donor as according to the assessee the same had not been considered in order passed by the Tribunal and the assessee's submissions on the reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 by the Tribunal in the impugned order considered the donor's statement and on appreciation of facts came to the conclusion that there is no mistake apparent on record. The Court itself had not reached a final conclusion that there was an error apparent on record in view of the statement of the donor not being considered. It has not been shown that the findings reached by the Tribunal on examination of the statement of the donor is in any manner perverse and/or arbitrary. So far as reliance in the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Mohanakala (supra)…
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