Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.
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.