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. M/s Tallam Apparels
Disallowance of Input Tax Credit on allegation of non-genuine transactions and non-payment of tax by selling dealer under VAT (Sections involved: Section 70(1), Section 39(1), and relevant provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003)
Facts :The assessee, a registered dealer dealing in garments, claimed input tax ...
Read MoreMetal N Strips vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals-3) & Anr.
Penalty exceeding amount specified in show cause notice – Sections 74(1), 74(9), 75(7), 75(13) and Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act / KGST Act, 2017.
Facts:The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 30.06.2023 passed u...
Read MoreOn Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Challenge to constitutional validity of denial of Input Tax Credit to purchasing dealers due to default of selling dealers under DVAT (Section involved: Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004)
Facts :The petitioners, registered dealers under the DVAT Act, claimed Input Tax...
Read More