Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

ITAT’s Deletion of Additions: ‘Assessment Cannot Be Based Solely on Statements: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., upholding the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The case revolved around the validity of assessment orders made under Sections 143(3) and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on alleged unaccounted income disclosed during a search operation. The court underscored the importance of corroborative evidence and the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross-examination.

Credibility of Statements and Corroborative Evidence: The court observed that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, while having evidentiary value, cannot alone substantiate an assessment without corroborative evidence. “Merely on the basis of admissions made by the assessee during search operations, additions cannot be sustained in the absence of corroborative material,” the bench noted, referring to precedents in Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT and CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal.

Right to Cross-Examination: Highlighting the principles of natural justice, the court emphasized that the failure to provide the opportunity for cross-examination of key witnesses invalidates the assessment. “Not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity,” the bench cited from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE.

The bench, comprising Justices Yashwant Varma and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, reiterated that assessments under Section 153C must be based on tangible evidence discovered during search operations and not merely on statements or assumptions. The court emphasized the necessity of a satisfaction note demonstrating the relevance and incriminating nature of the seized material related to the assessee.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav remarked, “The assessment cannot be sustained merely on the basis of statements recorded during the search without corroborative evidence. The principles of natural justice demand that the assessee should have a reasonable opportunity to present their case, which includes the right to cross-examination.”

The dismissal of the appeals by the Delhi High Court reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice in tax assessments. The judgment underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence and the right to cross-examination, setting a precedent for future cases. By validating ITAT’s findings, the court has reinforced the legal framework ensuring fair and just tax proceedings.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2024

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3 vs. Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd.

Latest Legal News