Chand Soni v. DCIT

101 TTJ 1028Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#1974 most cited

What is Chand Soni v. DCIT authority for?

A statement made by an assessee under section 132(4) during a search operation lacks evidentiary value if it is not supported by incriminating material found from the premises.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chand Soni v. DCIT · Shree Chand Soni vs. DCIT · Section 132(4) · Section 132 · evidentiary value of statement · statement during search · unsupported by incriminating material · standalone statement · admission during search · block assessment · surrender of income

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Chand Soni v. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)- 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AUXINITE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…ion 132(4) would not have any evidentiary value. Similar view has been adopted by the Jaipur bench of the Tribunal ITA No. 139/KOL/2025 & CO No. 1/KOL/2025 Auxinite Suppliers Private Limited; A.Y. A.Y. 2019-20 in the case of “Shree Chand Soni vs. DCIT” (2006) 101 TTJ 1028 (Jodhpur). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Harjeev Agarwal” in ITA No.8/2004 vide order dated 10.03.16 has observed that a statement made under section 132(4) of the Act on a stand-alone basis, without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operation, would not empower the AO to make a block ass…

Showing 120 of 58 · Page 1 of 3