“Assistant Commissioner”
The decision most relied on for Assistant Commissioner is Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (199 ITR 351), cited in 441 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Assistant Commissioner
Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.
The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).
The Assessing Officer must provide the assessee with all material relied upon for an addition or disallowance and an opportunity to cross-examine deponents or witnesses whose statements form the basis of the assessment. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates natural justice and invalidates the addition or disallowance.
When incriminating material belonging to a person other than the searched person is found during a search, assessment proceedings against that 'other person' must be initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The revenue remains at liberty to proceed in accordance with law if initial proceedings are flawed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not required to repeat its reasons when it fully agrees with the conclusions of the lower appellate authority and has no further grounds to add, even as the final fact-finding body.
Merely providing a copy of a statement or letters is not sufficient opportunity; when oral evidence is relied upon to replace written evidence, the party against whom it is used must be allowed to cross-examine the person concerned to properly weigh the evidence.
The burden of proof lies on the assessee to rebut the contents of documents or incriminating material discovered during a search and seizure operation, especially concerning undisclosed income, leveraging presumptions under sections like 132(4A) and 292C.
A mere lower gross profit (G.P.) rate or deviation in G.P. is not sufficient to justify a trading addition or the rejection of books of account if the books are maintained properly, entries are vouched, and stock positions are not disputed. The estimation of profit must rely on cogent material beyond mere suspicion.
