MANHARLAL K. CHOKSI, SINCE DECEASED HIS L/R AS UNDER vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITR/111/1997HC GujaratGJHC24020275199701 September 2008Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.PUJ,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA26 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kailashben Manharlal Choshi, is the applicant and the Commissioner of Income-tax is the respondent. The assessment year in question is 1989-90. A search under Section 132 was conducted on the assessee and her firm on November 4, 1988. During the search, the assessee made a statement under Section 132(4) disclosing Rs. 7 lacs as unaccounted investment in house property (Rs. 4 lacs), cash (Rs. 1 lac), furniture (Rs. 1 lac), and gold ornaments (Rs. 1 lac). In January 1989, the assessee retracted this disclosure, stating it was made under pressure and coercion, and that only Rs. 50,000/- was acceptable. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 7 lacs to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed this addition. The assessee's legal heirs are on record as the assessee expired during the pendency of the reference.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 6 lacs. The Court found that the assessee's explanations for the additions concerning house property construction (Rs. 4 lacs), gold ornaments (Rs. 1 lac), and furniture (Rs. 1 lac) were more convincing and had not been considered by the authorities below. The additions were made and confirmed merely on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 132(4), despite the subsequent retraction. The Court emphasized that without corroborative evidence, an admission alone cannot justify such additions, especially when the statement was recorded at odd hours and subsequently retracted with contrary evidence. The Court noted that the assessee had provided detailed sources for the investments in house property and furniture, and the gold ornament holding was explained as normal for a middle-class family. The Court found that the retraction was not an afterthought and the evidence provided by the assessee supported it. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1 lac on account of unaccounted cash was confirmed, but the addition of Rs. 6 lacs was deleted. The question referred to the Court was answered partly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7 lacs as disclosed in a statement under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but subsequently retracted by the assessee? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - All three authorities below failed to consider the assessee's retraction in its true perspective. - The statement under Section 132(4) was not voluntary but made under torture, coercion, tension, and pressure. - The retracted statement, coupled with a detailed affidavit and explanations for each item, was not considered properly by the appellate authorities. - The addition of Rs. 4 lacs for house property construction was unjustified as the cost was supported by departmental valuation and withdrawals from the firm. - The addition for gold ornaments was unjustified as the holding was explained by gifts received at marriage and the quantum was normal for a middle-class family. - The addition for furniture was unjustified as it was either old, renovated using firm withdrawals, or newly received and not yet paid for. - Reliance was placed on Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18, for the proposition that an assessee can show an admission is incorrect. - Reliance was placed on Nirman Textile Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 284 ITR 325 (Guj.), for the proposition that the Tribunal should discuss evidence for rejecting a retraction. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue, but it implicitly supports the Assessing Officer's and Tribunal's findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/11119/1997 1/26 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 111 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOSHI - Applicant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH J SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 01/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT

ITR/11119/1997 2/26 JUDGMENT

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,286 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →