Chandra Khilwani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara
Facts:
The assessee, a retired school teacher, had not filed a return for AY 2019-20 as her income was below the taxable limit. During a survey under Section 133A conducted in the premises of a builder group, an Excel sheet allegedly showing cash payments for purchase of shops contained the assessee’s name and PAN. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148A(b) alleging cash payment and reopened the assessment under Section 147, making an addition of ₹13,00,000.
Court Decision:
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer relied solely on an Excel sheet found during survey without establishing any correlation between the entries in the sheet and the assessee. The sheet related to a different project and period, whereas the assessee purchased a shop in 2021 and made payments through cheque. The developer also confirmed through a notarized affidavit that no cash payment was received from the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that an unsigned Excel sheet found from a third party without corroborative evidence cannot be treated as proof of a cash transaction. As the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate the alleged cash payment or correlate the seized document with the assessee, the addition of ₹13,00,000 was deleted and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Cases Referred by Court:
• PCIT (Central) vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia, Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024, Gujarat High Court (06.03.2024).
Other Case Law
State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited
Interpretation of burden of proof for claiming Input Tax Credit under VAT law; requirement of proving genuineness of transactions (Section involved: Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003)
Facts:The respondent purchasing dealers claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purcha...
Read MoreAlfa Group vs The Assistant State Tax Officer & Others
Whether goods can be detained under GST law on the ground of undervaluation compared to MRP and alleged wrong HSN classification.
Facts :The petitioner’s goods were detained during transit through a detention...
Read MoreS.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Validity of composite show cause notice for multiple financial years and multiple noticees – Sections 73, 74 and 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 and UPGST Act, 2017.
Facts:Search and investigation proceedings were conducted by different GST autho...
Read More