“Section 159(6)”
The decision most relied on for Section 159(6) is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 159(6)
When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.
Low profits alone, or minor defects such as the non-maintenance of a stock register, do not justify the rejection of regularly maintained books of account under Section 145, nor do they permit additions to income without proving specific errors.
For an addition to income or issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148, there must be a valid 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment; mere suspicion cannot form the basis for such action, as 'reason to believe' is not the same as 'reason to suspect'.
A statement recorded during a search under section 132(4) cannot form the sole basis for assessment additions unless corroborated by incriminating material recovered during the search. Post-search inquiry statements are also not considered incriminating material.
Additions to income cannot be made based solely on statements or confessions recorded at the time of a search, without corroborating evidence. Such confessions lack evidentiary value if not supported by other proof.