Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Shri Bhavish Harilal Moradia, M. N. Manvar & Co. vs. Income Tax Officer - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (02 Aug 2023)

Affidavit given by the third party cannot be used against the assessee without affording the opportunity of cross examination

MANU/IR/0131/2023

Direct Taxation

The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of PSC sale. The assessee in the year under consideration has purchased a residential house from the builder namely Parijat Residency on the payment of Rs. 20,50,000 as per the sale deed. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that, the assessee has made payment in cash for Rs. 8,50,000 without recording the same in the books on account. Thus, as per the Assessing Officer the assessee has made the payment of on-money for the purchase of residential property for Rs. 8,50,000 only. The Assessing Officer made the addition to the total income of the assessee. The Learned CIT(A) after considering all the facts was of the view that, the assessee has made the payment of on-money and accordingly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal.

In the present case, the entire thrust of the Revenue was based on the affidavit for the impugned addition which was not corroborated by any documentary evidence suggesting that the assessee has made payment by way of on-money in the purchase of the residential property. The affidavit given by the third party cannot be used against the assessee without affording the opportunity of cross examination. It is equally important to note that the assessee has also furnished the affidavit dated 1st October, 2016 stating that there was no investment of on-money in the purchase of residential property but the authorities below without pointing out any defect or infirmity in such affidavit of the assessee as relied on the affidavit of the third party for making the impugned addition.

It was the onus upon the Revenue to disprove the affidavit furnished by the assessee based on cogent reasons. It is the trite law that affidavit is written statement and a statement given by the third party cannot bind the assessee as held by the Bombay High court in the case of Aditi construction vs. DCIT.

The addition made by the authorities below based on the third-party statement is not sustainable. Hence, the finding of the Learned CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made by him. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   ADDITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved