“Section 159(2)(a)”
The decision most relied on for Section 159(2)(a) is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 159(2)(a)
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.
The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.
The ITAT distinguishes the case of Pawan Kumar v. PCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 61 (Del.-Trib.) in the context of assessing interest on enhanced land acquisition compensation.
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.
A notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a jurisdictional notice and a condition precedent for reassessment. Such a notice issued against a deceased person is valid if the legal representative submits to the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.
An assessee has the option to choose between the provisions of the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) in any given year, and the non-election of DTAA benefits in one year does not prevent claiming them in subsequent years.
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'.
Following the amendment to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act in 1989, the Assessing Officer has broad powers to reopen assessments if they have reason to believe income has escaped assessment, even if the assessee made a full and true disclosure of material facts. This belief can be formed in any manner.
