E.V.PHILIP vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EKM
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee's plea concerning the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's reasoning. The Tribunal had rightly noted that the assessee did not refer to his earlier statements made on oath (February 19, 1996, and February 29, 1996) even in his subsequent letter dated February 13, 1997. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that there was nothing on record to show that the assessee had rebutted the presumption available under Section 132(4). The filing of an affidavit before the Tribunal was considered insufficient to retract the earlier sworn statements, especially given the delay and lack of reference in subsequent correspondence. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision confirming the addition of Rupees nine lakhs was upheld. The ratio decidendi is that a statement made on oath under Section 132(4) carries a presumption, and its retraction must be timely and clearly communicated, with subsequent conduct not contradicting the original statement.
What were the facts?
This Indian Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) judgment concerns an appeal filed by the assessee, E.V. Philip, against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment), Special Range-II, Ernakulam. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated, but the dispute revolves around an addition of Rupees nine lakhs. The assessee's primary contention is that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act was made under a confused state of mind. The ITAT order, dated March 20, 2000, is under challenge. The procedural history indicates that the assessee made statements on oath on February 19, 1996, and February 29, 1996, and later filed an affidavit before the Tribunal. The assessee also sent a letter dated February 13, 1997, which did not refer to the earlier statements.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee's plea regarding the statement recorded in terms of Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, thereby upholding the addition of Rupees nine lakhs? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the statement under Section 132(4) was recorded when he was in a confused state of mind. He claimed that he intended to state that he had given three lakhs of rupees to all his three daughters collectively, not Rupees three lakhs 'each' as recorded. He also suggested the amount was paid by their brothers as instructed by him. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, the Tribunal's reasoning, as discussed in the judgment, implies that the revenue relied on the statement made under oath and the presumption available under Section 132(4), as the assessee failed to rebut it.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J: The only question argued before us in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee regarding a statement admittedly recorded from the assessee in terms of Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. That issue has been specifically considered in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been appropriately exercised to advert to the relevant materials and to consider the plea as regards that issue in its entirety.
The assessee's contention is that the addition of an amount of Rupees nine lakhs is unsustainable. He says that the statement under Section 132(4) was recorded from him while he was in a confused state of mind and all that he meant to say then was that he had given three lakhs of rupees to all his three daughters together. He attempts to explain that it was not Rupees three lakhs “each” as recorded in that statement under Section - 2 - 132(4) and that the amount paid was actually given by their brothers as instructed by the father.
Now, adverting to paragraph 13 of the impugned order, it has been rightly noticed by the Tribunal that after the statements given under oath on 19.2.1996 and 29.2.1996, the assessee did not make any reference to those earlier statements even in his letter dated 13.2.1997. The Tribunal was, in our view, right in holding that there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had ever rebutted the presumption available under Section 132(4). At best what he is shown to have done is to file an affidavit when the matter came up before the Tribunal. Having noticed that, we would reiterate the finding of the Tribunal that even in his letter dated 13.2.1997, the assessee did not make any reference to the earlier statements made under oath on 19.2.1996 and 29.2.1996, to which statements provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act applies. The period within which a statement made on oath is retracted is of abundant relevance in deciding statutory matters of such nature. On the whole, we find no legal infirmity with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in para 13 of the impugned order, thereby holding that the assessee - 3 - had not succeeded as regarding the amount of Rupees nine lakhs. The decision of the Tribunal confirming the addition of that amount does not warrant interference in this I.T. appeal. The appeal, hence, fails.
No other point has been raised or argued before us. In the result, this8 appeal is dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge
K.Vinod Chandran Judge vku/200612. --
More judgments on Section 132(4)
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Anilkumar Jayantilal Khatri, Ahmedabad vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2053/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
