A.A.DAVIS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/55/2015HC KeralaKLHC01025456201512 June 2015Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing ornaments and a director of kuri businesses, was subjected to search and seizure on October 24, 2008. The Revenue completed assessments for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, making additions primarily related to property purchase considerations. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed additions concerning the difference in considerations. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which passed a common order. The High Court is now hearing appeals against the ITAT's order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer, relying on the seized document (SJ-III) and the assessee's sworn statements dated October 24, 2008, and October 30, 2008, were not illegal. The court noted that in the statement dated October 24, 2008, the assessee accepted the genuineness of the entries in the document, and the statement dated October 30, 2008, reiterated this. The court found that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's subsequent retraction during assessment proceedings as belated. The court also observed that the Tribunal had set aside some additions and remitted them for re-consideration, but for the additions confirmed by the Tribunal, they were fully substantiated by the document and statements relied upon by the Department. Consequently, the court found no illegality or question of law arising for consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer, based on a seized document (SJ-III) and sworn statements of the assessee dated October 24, 2008, and October 30, 2008, are legally valid, especially when the assessee later retracted these statements during assessment proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the additions were based on a document seized from another assessee and sworn statements that were later retracted. The retraction should have been considered. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer rightly rejected the belated retraction and relied on the seized document and the assessee's own sworn statements, which were initially accepted as genuine. The additions are substantiated by this evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/22ND JYAISHTA, 1937 ITA.No. 55 of 2015 () ---------------------- ORDER IN ITA NOS.316 - 318/COCH/2012 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 27-12-2013 APPELLANT: ------------------- A.A.DAVIS ARIMBOOR, ADAMBUKULAM HOUSE, KODANNUR THRISSUR BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL; CIRCLE, THRISSUR 680001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12- 06-2015, ALONG WITH ITA. 58/2015, ITA. 59/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA.No. 55 of 2015 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A : COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE B : COPY OF LETTER FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE C : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE D : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, KOCHI -18. ANNEXURE E : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,560 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →