Back
I. P. MUKERJI, BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – II, Kolkata – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Poddar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. admission and processing errors in appeal (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appeal process under the income tax act. (Para 2) |
| 3. details of search and seizure operations (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. appellate authority's analysis of evidence (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. understanding legal presumptions under tax laws (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. nature of rebuttal in legal presumptions (Para 17 , 19 , 24) |
| 7. admissions and retractions in tax proceedings (Para 18 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. concluding decisions and remand directions (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
(I.P. Mukerji, J.)
This is an appeal under Section 260A of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. Such an appeal is admissible and can be heard only if a substantial question of law is involved. If the adjudication of facts by the lower adjudicating authority is such as to render the decision perverse or most unreasonable, a substantial question of law is said to arise from the said order. On 30th September, 2019 this appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:
The presumption of ownership under tax law is rebuttable, placing the burden on the taxpayer to disprove allegations of undeclared income from seized documents.
Seized documents from third-party search cannot sustain addition under section 69A without independent evidence proving assessee's receipt of cash; rebuttable presumptions require nexus and cannot ov....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
