CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak

350 ITR 71High Court2013#2099 most cited

What is CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak authority for?

A statement made under oath during a search under section 132(4) cannot be dispelled by a self-serving retraction without further corroboration. Evidence in the form of the assessee's own statement and corroborative material is sufficient.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT · Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak · section 132(4) · retraction of statement · voluntary admission · sworn statement · statement under oath · search and seizure · corroborative material · evidence

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 38

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementgaarsection 158b(b)section 158bbvoluntary admissionsection 194qsection 153c(1)section 131(1a)statement under section 132(4)block periodsection 292b

Judgments citing CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 382/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: “IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)”. (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: "IT: Where assessee…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 376/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: “IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)”. (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: "IT: Where assessee…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 375/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: “IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)”. (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: "IT: Where assessee…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 374/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: “IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)”. (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under:…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 373/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: "IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)". (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: "IT: Where assessee…

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 836/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: “IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)”. (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: "IT: Where assessee…

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 835/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: “IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)”. (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: "IT: Where assessee…

Shri Ashok Bhawarlal Jain, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1123/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…vs. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/[2013] 350 ITR 71 (Ker.).” Similarly, therefore, these grounds of appeal filed by the appellant- assessee stands dismissed. 13. However, we find that the Assessing Officer adopted pick and choose method while framing the assessment. It is a well settled position of law that the documents, entries in the diaries found and seized during the course of search and sei…

Shri Ashok Bhawarlal Jain, Pune vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1122/PUN/2023[A.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…vs. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/[2013] 350 ITR 71 (Ker.).” Similarly, therefore, these grounds of appeal filed by the appellant- assessee stands dismissed. 13. However, we find that the Assessing Officer adopted pick and choose method while framing the assessment. It is a well settled position of law that the documents, entries in the diaries found and seized during the course of search and sei…

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…& Co. v. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/12011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker.), 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidavits dated 16-4-2014 notarized on 19-4-2014, we find that all those affidavits are stereo typed, identically worded stating that the statement made u/s 132(4) to the effect that the receipt of capitation fees are not correct a…

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 227/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…& Co. v. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/12011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker.), 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidavits dated 16-4-2014 notarized on 19-4-2014, we find that all those affidavits are stereo typed, identically worded stating that the statement made u/s 132(4) to the effect that the receipt of capitation fees are not correct a…

M/S. Kakda Steels Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 916/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ould (2015) 64 require some corroborative material for the ld AO taxmann.com to make addition on basis of such statement. 107(Delhi)/ (2016) 237 Taxmann 512 (Delh)/ (2015) 379 ITR 367(Delhi) 5. CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak Initial Burden to show that confession was 350 ITR 71 (Ker) voluntary and not obtained by resorting to coercive means is on the department. 6. TDI Marketing P Ltd. 28 Held that since basis of addition was statement of SOT 215 (Del.) assessee rather than actual investment having been made, provisions of sec 69 were not attracted to such a situation. 7. M. Narayanan & Bros. v. It was held that when ass…

DCIT Cental Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Dr. Murugu Sundaram, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 3086/CHNY/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…or evidence, oral or documentary, to substantiate the allegation that he was forced to make the statement in question involuntarily.' 2.6 The Id.CIT(A) should have considered the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. O. Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71) has held that a self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under Sec. 132(4). 3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be r…

DCIT Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Dr. Raja Sundaram, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 3085/CHNY/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…or evidence, oral or documentary, to substantiate the allegation that he was forced to make the statement in question involuntarily.' 2.6 The Id.CIT(A) should have considered the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. O. Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71) has held that a self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under Sec. 132(4). 3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be r…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Pune vs. M/S Sinhgad Technical Education Society (Trust), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1654/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153A

…he case of CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352 (P&H), Bachittar Singh vs. CIT, 328 ITR 400 (P&H), Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT, 168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT, 248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya, 332 ITR 537 (Kerala), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak, 350 ITR 71 (Kerala). 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidavits dated 16.04.2014 notarized on 19.04.2014, we find that all these affidavits are stereo typed, identically worded stating that the statement made u/s 132(4) to the effect that the receipt of capitation fees are not 47 M/…

Pawan Kumar Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 202/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.199/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawa, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall, Malad East, Burhanpur-450331 Mumbai-400097 PAN No.ABMPC4542L (Appellant) (Respondent) .. I.T.A. Nos.200&201/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawan, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall,…

Manish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 201/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.199/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawa, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall, Malad East, Burhanpur-450331 Mumbai-400097 PAN No.ABMPC4542L (Appellant) (Respondent) .. I.T.A. Nos.200&201/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawan, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall,…

Manish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 200/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.199/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawa, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall, Malad East, Burhanpur-450331 Mumbai-400097 PAN No.ABMPC4542L (Appellant) (Respondent) .. I.T.A. Nos.200&201/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawan, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall,…

Ashish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.199/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawa, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall, Malad East, Burhanpur-450331 Mumbai-400097 PAN No.ABMPC4542L (Appellant) (Respondent) .. I.T.A. Nos.200&201/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawan, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall,…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon‟ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborated by the documents, the burden on the department ceases to exist. On the retraction being filed by the assessee, there is a burden cast on the assessee to prove the detraction…