Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil Aggarwal

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to

…t. In this context, he also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del.) which in turn relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala). He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search and therefore the retraction itself was not genuine. According to him, the said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the categorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement under Section…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil Aggarwal

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to

…t. In this context, he also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del.) which in turn relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala). He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search and therefore the retraction itself was not genuine. According to him, the said retraction did not dilute the evidentiary value of the categorical admission made by the Assessee in his statement under Section…

Sh. Ashwani Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08 Ashwani Jain, A-92, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Gujrawalan Town, Part-1, Income Tax, Circle-20(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aahpj3505G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, Advocates Respondent By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi, Dated 31.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,23,046/- & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio. Ii. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Not Quashing The Penalty Order Framed By Ld. Ao Is Beyond Jurisdiction & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio & The Impugned Penalty Order Has Been Framed Without Considering The Submissions/Evidences Of The Assessee & Without Providing Any Adverse

…assessee. In support of this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son, 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons Vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.). He further submitted that no penalty is leviable and in respect of an item for which the addition was made based on the concession of the party and in support of this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj.). He also submitted that no penalty c…

CIT vs. Bahri Sons

The appeal is dismissed

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 29/2013 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr Abhishek Maratha, sr. standing counsel with Mr Anshul Sharma, Adv. . . . versus . . . BAHRI SONS ..... Respondent . Through . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 04.02.2013 . . . This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.2269/Del./2010 pertaining…

Income Tax vs. M/S. Dhingra Metal Works

…arent that while Section 132(4) of the Act specifically authorizes an officer to examine a person on oath, 2010:DHC:4947-DB Section 133A does not permit the same. 13. The Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) and Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Kader Khan, (2008) 300 ITR 157 have also taken a similar view. The relevant portion of the Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow :- “The provision also enables the income-tax authority to impound and retain in his custody for such period as…