Society v. UOI

394 ITR 220Supreme Court of India2017#141 most cited

What is Society v. UOI authority for?

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

493

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Society v. UOI · Common Cause (a registered society) 394 ITR 220 · loose papers evidentiary value · uncorroborated documents search · independent corroboration undisclosed income · Section 132(4) statement · Section 292C · Section 34 Evidence Act

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153CSection 143(3)Section 292CSection 132(4A)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 292ccsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 34retraction of statementsection 292cloose papersretracted statementsection 153c(1)statement under section 132(4)protective assessmentsection 131(1a)

Judgments citing Society v. UOI

Shri.B.H.Basha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1375/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Roumvan Paite, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1375 to 1378/Bang/2016 Assessment year : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Shri B.H Basha, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- Prop. M/s Bahar Films, tax, No.18, 13th Cross, Central Circle-1(4), Jayamahal Extension, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 046. PAN – AEBPB 0242 C APPELANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri B.S Balachandra, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Roumvan Paite, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 01.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accou…

DCIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. M/S. Dangayach Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 33/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A) &For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…n him to relate such statement to the appellant and also to provide an opportunity of cross examination of such person. 12. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) reported in 394 ITR 220 wherein the earlier decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of V. C. Shukla’s case has been discussed at length and relying on the said decision, the ld. CIT(A) stated that though these judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were rendered in the context of criminal law, yet what the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely on the basis of such un…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…n him to relate such statement to the appellant and also to provide an opportunity of cross examination of such person. 15. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) reported in 394 ITR 220 wherein the earlier decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of V. C. Shukla’s case has been discussed at length and relying on the said decision, the ld. CIT(A) stated that though these judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were rendered in the context of criminal law, yet what the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court held that merely on the basis of s…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…n him to relate such statement to the appellant and also to provide an opportunity of cross examination of such person. 15. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) reported in 394 ITR 220 wherein the earlier decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of V. C. Shukla’s case has been discussed at length and relying on the said decision, the ld. CIT(A) stated that though these judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were rendered in the context of criminal law, yet what the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court held that merely on the basis of s…

Ordinary Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 97/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 34Section 9

…sheet No. 8) and not in MR 71/91. Resultantly, in view of our earlier discussion, section 34 cannot at all be pressed into service against him." 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, A registered Society Vs. UOI 394 ITR 220. 12. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra], notings found in the loose sheets would not do any good to the Revenue. The assessee has claimed 25 paise or 0.25% on the strength of the statement of kingpin Shri Tarun Goyal, who in his statement recorded under oath u/s 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961 has categori…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 506/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…not be considered as incriminating material” The above observation would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 33. It was submission of the AR that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 19 of 183 the expression “document” in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- “6.4 We find that the Assessing Officer has made out the case for making such…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 505/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…not be considered as incriminating material” The above observation would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 33. It was submission of the AR that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 19 of 183 the expression “document” in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- “6.4 We find that the Assessing Officer has made out the case for making such…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 504/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…not be considered as incriminating material” The above observation would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 33. It was submission of the AR that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 19 of 183 the expression “document” in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- “6.4 We find that the Assessing Officer has made out the case for making such…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 503/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…not be considered as incriminating material” The above observation would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 33. It was submission of the AR that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 19 of 183 the expression “document” in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- “6.4 We find that the Assessing Officer has made out the case for making such…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 502/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…not be considered as incriminating material” The above observation would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 33. It was submission of the AR that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 19 of 183 the expression “document” in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- “6.4 We find that the Assessing Officer has made out the case for making such…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 501/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…not be considered as incriminating material” The above observation would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 33. It was submission of the AR that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 19 of 183 the expression “document” in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- “6.4 We find that the Assessing Officer has made out the case for making such…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 500/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…not be considered as incriminating material” The above observation would mean that the AO has acknowledged that the seized material are dumb documents. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 33. It was submission of the AR that the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 construed the meaning of ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 19 of 183 the expression “document” in the context of section 132 of the Act as under:- “6.4 We find that the Assessing Officer has made out the case for making such…

Matrix India Entertainment Consultants Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC -8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals for 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 &

ITA 2938/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…2015) 174 TTJ 151(Mum)(Trib.), Dr M.K.E Memon (2008) 248 ITR 310 (Bom)(HC). Besides in the case .In Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181(SC), it is held that an Affidavit is valid unless proven false. The Supreme Court in Comman Cause v UOI [2017] [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) (Pg. No. 140-148) was dealing with incriminating materials in form of random sheets and loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, M/s. Matrix India Entertainment Consultants Pvt. Ltd pen drives etc. which were found during search. It was held that entries in loose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers…

Charminar Bottling Company Private Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1344/HYD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07 Charminar Bottling Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Secunderabad. Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc2858E (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Kanika Jain Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2006-07 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - Iii, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/07/2013 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Smt. Kanika JainFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 69

…qqIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Charminar Bottling Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Secunderabad. Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AABCC2858E (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Kanika Jain Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date of hearing: 08/04/2021 Date of pronouncement: 20/05/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2006-07 is directed against the CIT(A) - iii, Hyderabad’s order, dated 12/0…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3994/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” New Delhi BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.3993 & 3994/DEL/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-15 Param Dairy Ltd., ACIT, Central Circle-14, 11/5B, 2nd Floor, Param New Delhi. Tower, Pusa Road, Vs. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCP8066C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, CA and Shri Divyam Mittal, CA. Respondent by: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 04 09 2020 Date of pronouncement: 03 12 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICI…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3993/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” New Delhi BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.3993 & 3994/DEL/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-15 Param Dairy Ltd., ACIT, Central Circle-14, 11/5B, 2nd Floor, Param New Delhi. Tower, Pusa Road, Vs. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCP8066C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, CA and Shri Divyam Mittal, CA. Respondent by: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 04 09 2020 Date of pronouncement: 03 12 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru vs. Mr. Mohammed Safwan, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 88/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 34

…dences unearthed were loose sheets and digital evidenceswhich has got no evidentiary value and legally inadmissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220/ 245 Taxman 214). f) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji has erred in law and also on facts by upholding the estimation of profits at 4% which is not backed by any evidence or comparable cases, while in the case of supari business profits does not cross 2%. 3. CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO Rs.18,80,167/…

Mr. Mohammed Safwan, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 68/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 34

…dences unearthed were loose sheets and digital evidenceswhich has got no evidentiary value and legally inadmissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220/ 245 Taxman 214). f) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji has erred in law and also on facts by upholding the estimation of profits at 4% which is not backed by any evidence or comparable cases, while in the case of supari business profits does not cross 2%. 3. CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO Rs.18,80,167/…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru vs. Mr. Mohammed Safwan, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 89/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 34

…dences unearthed were loose sheets and digital evidenceswhich has got no evidentiary value and legally inadmissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220/ 245 Taxman 214). f) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji has erred in law and also on facts by upholding the estimation of profits at 4% which is not backed by any evidence or comparable cases, while in the case of supari business profits does not cross 2%. 3. CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO Rs.18,80,167/…

Mr. Mohammed Safwan, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

ITA 67/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 34

…dences unearthed were loose sheets and digital evidenceswhich has got no evidentiary value and legally inadmissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220/ 245 Taxman 214). f) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji has erred in law and also on facts by upholding the estimation of profits at 4% which is not backed by any evidence or comparable cases, while in the case of supari business profits does not cross 2%. 3. CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO Rs.18,80,167/…