PCIT v. Avinash Kumar Setia

81 Taxmann.com 476High Court2017#953 most cited

What is PCIT v. Avinash Kumar Setia authority for?

An addition to income made based on a statement is justified, especially when such statement is corroborated by evidence found during a search operation, such as digital data and employee confirmations.

112

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Avinash Kumar Setia · Section 132(4) statement · addition based on statement · corroboration of evidence · search assessment · Section 153A · digital evidence · pen drive evidence · justified additions · Delhi High Court

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing PCIT v. Avinash Kumar Setia

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt R Meena, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 722/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1St Main Road, The Income-Tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Agrpm0228K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 40 Lakhs Made On The Basis Of Statement Recorded Of Husband Of Assessee Who Offered An Additional Income On Account Of Inflated Expenses Found During The Course Of Survey Proceedings. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Made On Account Of Payment Reduced In Cash Book At Rs.3,41,918/-, Cash Expenses Of Rs. 3 Lakhs Without Calling For Report From The Ao & Accepting The Additional Evidence & Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In Contravention Of The Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1st Main Road, The Income-tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. PAN: AGRPM0228K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Revenue by : Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 03-01-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by revenue against order dated 28.02…