Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The ITAT held that a statement/document received from a third party cannot be relied upon for making an addition u/s 69A, without giving the assessee an opportunity to contradict the same and cross-examine the person who gave the statement/document. The suo-moto disclosure made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission, without corroborative material/evidence, cannot be the basis for making an addition. In the present case, except for a letter filed before the DCIT/Settlement Commission, there was no other corroborative material/evidence for sustaining the addition. Moreover, no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examine the person who made the disclosure/issued the letter relied upon for the addition. Consequently, the addition was held unsustainable and deleted in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.