Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Appellant proved ownership of gold bars through valid invoices, discharging initial onus. Revenue failed to establish invoices unrelated to seized gold, lacking inquiry into consideration paid. Foreign origin and smuggled nature of gold not conclusively established beyond relying on Appellant's statements, which were hearsay. Lack of corroborative substantive evidence renders hearsay inadmissible. Revenue's case based on presumptions and assumptions instead of substantive evidence. Since gold not liable for confiscation, penalty u/s 112(b) on Appellant set aside. Appeal allowed.
Appellant proved ownership of gold bars through valid invoices, discharging initial onus. Revenue failed to establish invoices unrelated to seized gold, lacking inquiry into consideration paid. Foreign origin and smuggled nature of gold not conclusively established beyond relying on Appellant's statements, which were hearsay. Lack of corroborative substantive evidence renders hearsay inadmissible. Revenue's case based on presumptions and assumptions instead of substantive evidence. Since gold not liable for confiscation, penalty u/s 112(b) on Appellant set aside. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
