CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

…not constitute incriminating materials for the purpose of making addition in the hands of assessee other than the searched person that to without affording cross examination of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia, 333 ITR 315 held that statement was not the document which was found during search. In fact this was the document which came to the created during the search as the statement was recorded at the time of search. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement was seized during the search and thus, would not qualify the expression ’’document’’ having been seiz…

Anand Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

…not constitute incriminating materials for the purpose of making addition in the hands of assessee other than the searched person that to without affording cross examination of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia, 333 ITR 315 held that statement was not the document which was found during search. In fact this was the document which came to the created during the search as the statement was recorded at the time of search. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement was seized during the search and thus, would not qualify the expression ’’document’’ having been seiz…

Anand Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

…not constitute incriminating materials for the purpose of making addition in the hands of assessee other than the searched person that to without affording cross examination of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia, 333 ITR 315 held that statement was not the document which was found during search. In fact this was the document which came to the created during the search as the statement was recorded at the time of search. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement was seized during the search and thus, would not qualify the expression ’’document’’ having been seiz…

Anand Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

…not constitute incriminating materials for the purpose of making addition in the hands of assessee other than the searched person that to without affording cross examination of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia, 333 ITR 315 held that statement was not the document which was found during search. In fact this was the document which came to the created during the search as the statement was recorded at the time of search. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement was seized during the search and thus, would not qualify the expression ’’document’’ having been seiz…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.S.Aggarwal

…addition could be made in the block assessment proceedings. Reliance was placed upon paragraph 20 of the decision Commissioner of Income Tax versus Harjeev Aggarwal, (2016) 229 DLT 33 and Commissioner of Income-tax versus Late Shri Raj Pal Bhatia, (2011) 333 ITR 315 (Del). In the latter case, the High Court has observed as under:- ―13. The Tribunal has held that this statement could not be treated ―books of accounts or other documents or assets‖ which only could be the basis for invoking the provision of Section 158 BD of the Act. Admittedly, statement of Mrs. Charla is neither ‗books of accounts‘ or…

M/S. M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…he basis of some incriminating material found in search in respect of those years, assessment of which were not pending on the date of search. A statement alone dehors any material cannot be treated as incriminating material (Delhi High Court in Rajpal Bhatia 333 ITR 315). Further a reference can be made to the following decisions a. CIT Vs Kabul Chawala reported in 380 ITR 573(Del). b. CIT Vs Kurele Paper reported in 380 ITR 571(Del). 24 It is submitted that so far as AY 2010-11 would concern the CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that in this year the AO has failed to corroborate the surrender with any documenta…