TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds decision on Tax Appeal, stresses need for evidence & rejects additions based solely on confessional statement.</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner Income Tax Surat Versus Nageshwar Enterprises</h3> Principal Commissioner Income Tax Surat Versus Nageshwar Enterprises - [2020] 421 ITR 388 (Guj) Issues:1. Addition made on account of undisclosed profit and unaccounted investment in undervalued goods.2. Justification of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the addition.3. Consideration of the statement of admission by the assessee given before the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit (II) Surat.4. Correctness of the statement by the Hon'ble ITAT that no addition can be made on the action of a third party.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition made on account of undisclosed profit and unaccounted investment in undervalued goodsThe case involved a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the addition made on account of undisclosed profit and unaccounted investment in undervalued goods. The assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act, with significant additions on peak unaccounted investment and GP on unaccounted purchases.Issue 2: Justification of the ITAT in deleting the additionThe ITAT justified the deletion of the addition, emphasizing that the confessional statement made by a partner of the firm, recorded under oath, was the main evidence relied upon by the Customs Authorities and the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) observed that there were no independent findings to support the addition, and the AO solely relied on information from the customs department without conducting further inquiries to establish the truth. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal, highlighting the lack of corroborative evidence to substantiate the alleged unaccounted payments.Issue 3: Consideration of the statement of admission by the assesseeThe statement of admission by the assessee before the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit (II) Surat played a crucial role in initiating the scrutiny of the case. However, the CIT(A) and the ITAT found that apart from this statement, there was a lack of concrete evidence to support the additions made by the AO. The ITAT emphasized that without documentary evidence, no addition could be justified based solely on the action of a third party, in this case, the DRI.Issue 4: Correctness of the statement by the Hon'ble ITATThe Hon'ble ITAT's statement that no addition could be made on the action of a third party was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, which also referred to a decision by the CESTAT, West Zone Bench Mumbai, dropping proceedings against the assessee-firm. The Tribunal noted that there was no documentary evidence to suggest under-invoicing by the assessee, and without such evidence, the addition could not be sustained. The Court, in line with previous judicial pronouncements, affirmed that a mere confessional statement without corroborative evidence was insufficient to support additions.In conclusion, the Tax Appeal was dismissed by the High Court, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) and the ITAT, as there was a lack of substantial questions of law and no concrete evidence to support the additions made by the AO based on the confessional statement alone.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
