Onus shifts to Revenue once all supporting documents produced by an Assessee?

Pr CIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)- 28 November 2017

Some of the important pointers of the case (for easy reference):-

1- It was further discussed that "Learned Counsel further submits that it is well settled that the initial burden with regard to the existence of the investments Company would lie on the assessee which has been clearly discharged by producing voluminous documents which included the incorporation of such Companies, the Memorandum of Association, the assessment Orders for three preceding years and other materials to establish the existence of the Companies.""

2- The Appellants have failed to explain as to how such Companies have been assessed though according to them such Companies are not existing and are fictitious companies,

3- Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants was unable to point out that any of such findings arrived at by the authorities below were on the basis of misleading of evidence or failure to examine any material documents whilst coming to such conclusions.

4- Similar case was referred for Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Private Limited

5- This Court in the Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, have come to the conclusion that once the Assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case.

6-In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who have admittedly not been subjected to cross examination. In such circumstances, the question of remanding the matter for re-examination of such persons, would not at all be justified. The Assessing Officer, if he so desired, ought to have allowed the Assessee to cross examine such persons in case the statements were to be relied upon in such proceedings,

For reading full text of the case please refer link - http://itatonline.org/archives/pr-cit-vs-paradise-inland-shipping-pvt-ltd-bombay-high-court-s-68-bogus-share-capital-companies-which-invest-share-capital-cannot-be-treated-as-bogus-if-they-are-registered-and-have-been-assessed-o/paradise-68-bogus-share-capital/