CIT vs. BAHRI SONS

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 29 / 2013HC Delhi04 February 20131 pages
For Petitioner: ABHISHEK MARATHA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(Appeals) that a statement on oath cannot be recorded under Section 133A. Therefore, the addition made based on such a statement was invalid.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition based on a statement recorded by an empowered officer from a partner of the respondent-firm under Section 133A. This statement was purportedly recorded on oath.

What were the issues?

Whether a statement recorded on oath under Section 133A can be used for making an addition to income. Whether the provisions of Section 133A empower the recording of statements on oath.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 132(4),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 29/2013 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr Abhishek Maratha, sr. standing counsel with Mr Anshul Sharma, Adv. . . . versus . . . BAHRI SONS ..... Respondent . Through . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 04.02.2013 . . . This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.2269/Del./2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. . In this case, the assessing officer has made an addition of `50,88,639/- entirely on the basis of a statement recorded by the empowered officer of a partner of the respondent-firm purportedly under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The statement was of one Anuj Batra who was a partner in the firm. The statement was recorded on oath on 19.12.2006. . The short point that falls for consideration is whether such a statement could have been recorded and whether it could be used by the assessing officer for making the said addition. When one goes through the provisions of Section 133A it becomes clear that the statement that has to be recorded under Section 133A(3)(iii) does not refer to any statement on oath. A statement on oath can only be recorded under Section 132(4) of the said Act as also under Section 131. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition by observing that the provisions of Section 133A do not empower the empowered officer to record a statement on oath. He had placed reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathew and Sons vs. CIT : (2003) 263 ITR 101. Apart from this, on merits also, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed by the Tribunal. The revenue is in appeal before us. We do not see any reason to interfere with the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. . The appeal is dismissed. . . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . FEBRUARY 04, 2013 . vld . . . $ 5 .

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →