What is CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni authority for?

An admission made in a statement during search proceedings under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act is not considered conclusive proof. Such admissions require corroboration by other independent incriminating material for making additions to income.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni?

63 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni (291 ITR 172), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 271(1)(c), Section 132(4).

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni (291 ITR 172)

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…ITR 18 (SC)\nhas held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence\nbut it can't be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to\nshow that it is incorrect.\nii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok\nKumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in\nstatement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can\nalways be explained.\niii) CIT vs. Bhanwar Lal Murwatiya (Rajasthan High Court,\nJodhpur) 39 TW 214 whether department has to bring on record\nsufficient evidence before making an addition u/s 69 of the Act?\nHeld yes. Whether a retracted statement…

INDRAVADAN HANJARIMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6281/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…eipt of capitation fee. Referring to the Instruction F.No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv.II) dated 10/03/2003, the addition made was deleted observing that admission made u/s 132(4) of the Act was not a valid piece of evidence. d) In the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) it was held that admission in statement during search proceedings is not ‘conclusive proof’. Applying the above preposition of law as discussed above, we also found that as per the facts of the present case, the addition in the present case were also made on the statement of third party therefore keeping in view the sustainable on this gr…

INDRAVADAN HANJARIMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6280/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…eipt of capitation fee. Referring to the Instruction F.No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv.II) dated 10/03/2003, the addition made was deleted observing that admission made u/s 132(4) of the Act was not a valid piece of evidence. d) In the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) it was held that admission in statement during search proceedings is not ‘conclusive proof’. Applying the above preposition of law as discussed above, we also found that as per the facts of the present case, the addition in the present case were also made on the statement of third party therefore keeping in view the sustainable on this gr…

INDRAVADAN HANJARIMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…eipt of capitation fee. Referring to the Instruction F.No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv.II) dated 10/03/2003, the addition made was deleted observing that admission made u/s 132(4) of the Act was not a valid piece of evidence. d) In the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) it was held that admission in statement during search proceedings is not ‘conclusive proof’. Applying the above preposition of law as discussed above, we also found that as per the facts of the present case, the addition in the present case were also made on the statement of third party therefore keeping in view the sustainable on this gr…

SATELITE TRADE IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

…s to the receipt of capitation fee. Referring to the\nInstruction F.No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv.II) dated 10/03/2003, the\naddition made was deleted observing that admission made u/s\n132(4) of the Act was not a valid piece of evidence.\nd) CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) for the\nproposition that admission in statement during search\nproceedings is not conclusive proof.\n19. Since the Ld AO before making addition has not brought\non record any such cogent evidence that the said purchases\nare ingenuine, on this count too, the additions are not\nsustainable as held in the case of CIT vs Orissa\nCorporation…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU vs. KUDLUR RAMASWAMY SATHYANARAYANA, MYSURU

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1130/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey**

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…Pilliah & Sons* [1976] 63 ITR 411 (SC)*; Dy. CIT* v. *Ratan Corpn.* [2005] 145 Taxman 503/197 CTR 536 (Guj.); *Asstt. CIT* v. *Shri Devendra Kumar Choudhary* [IT Appeal No. 828/JP/16, dated 30-6- 2017]; *CIT* v. *Ashok Kumar Soni* [2008] 166 Taxman 371/[2007] 291 ITR 172 (Raj.); *Kailahben Manharlal Chokshi* v. *CIT* [2008] 174 Taxman 466/[2010] 328 ITR 411 (Guj.); *CIT* v. *Omprakash K. Jain* [2009] 178 Taxman 179/[2010] 322 ITR 362 (Bom.); *Mehta Parikh & Co.* v. *CIT* [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC); *Shree Ganesh Trading Co.* v. *CIT* [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170/214 Taxman 262/257 CTR 159 (Jhar.); *CIT* v. *Shri Ramdas…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. URMILA GOYAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit Central Vs Smt Urmila Goyal Circle – 30 K-69 Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi Delhi Pan No.Aaopg3349Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Smt Sapana Bhatia Cit-Dr Respondent By Sh. Prateek Mittal Ca

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69

…ause this is a retracted statement. 7. Reliance has placed on the following judgments:- 1. Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291 ITR 172 (Raj) 3. Asstt. CIT Vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ (Ahd.) 867 8. The Ld CIT(A) has observed in his order us under :- “12. In this case the Assessing Officer has made protective addition of Rs.6,25,00,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act, to the income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2016-17, concluding that the appellant and her son Shri Dhruv Goel h…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. DHRUVA GOEL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 1648/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Dr B.R.R Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit Central Vs Dhruva Goel Circle – 30 K-69, Hauz Khas New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi Pan No. Aazpg0330Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dhruva Goel Vs Dcit Central K-69, Hauz Khas Enclave, Circle – 30 New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aazpg0330Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Smt Sapana Bhatia Cit-Dr Respondent By Sh. Prateek Mittal Ca

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69

…use this is a retracted statement. 7. Reliance has placed on the following judgments :- 1. Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291 ITR 172 (Raj) 3. Asstt. CIT Vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ (Ahd.) 867 8. The Ld CIT(A) has observed in his order are as under :- 10.5 I have carefully gone through the assessment order, the written submissions of the appellant and the relevant case laws. It is noticed from the assessment order that the AO has merely rejected the Retraction on…

DHRUVA GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 1604/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Dr B.R.R Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit Central Vs Dhruva Goel Circle – 30 K-69, Hauz Khas New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi Pan No. Aazpg0330Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dhruva Goel Vs Dcit Central K-69, Hauz Khas Enclave, Circle – 30 New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aazpg0330Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Smt Sapana Bhatia Cit-Dr Respondent By Sh. Prateek Mittal Ca

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69

…use this is a retracted statement. 7. Reliance has placed on the following judgments :- 1. Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291 ITR 172 (Raj) 3. Asstt. CIT Vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ (Ahd.) 867 8. The Ld CIT(A) has observed in his order are as under :- 10.5 I have carefully gone through the assessment order, the written submissions of the appellant and the relevant case laws. It is noticed from the assessment order that the AO has merely rejected the Retraction on…

SRISHTI ASSOCIATES,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA-RAJASTHAN

ITA 587/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 246ASection 44A

…he Ld AR of the assessee placed the reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Anothers (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) (ii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.). (iii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279). (iv) Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. v. PCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi) (v) Harjeev Aggarwal v. CIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi) (vi) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, vide its order dated 14.07.2016, in the case of CHETNABEN J SHAH LE…

SH. MADAN LAL GUPTA,KESHAV NAGAR, ALWAR vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 580/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

…portant piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given proper opportunity to show the correct state of affairs. CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) (HC) Admissions are relevant & strong piece of evidence that may be used against the person making such admission but they are not conclusive proof of the statement contained in the admission & can always be explained. PCIT &Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) 110 CCH 102 (Del.) (HC) (i) A statement recorded u/s 132(4) has evidentiary v…

SH. MADAN LAL GUPTA,KESHAV NAGAR, ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

…portant piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given proper opportunity to show the correct state of affairs. CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) (HC) Admissions are relevant & strong piece of evidence that may be used against the person making such admission but they are not conclusive proof of the statement contained in the admission & can always be explained. PCIT &Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) 110 CCH 102 (Del.) (HC) (i) A statement recorded u/s 132(4) has evidentiary v…