CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna

344 ITR 352High Court2012#3106 most cited

What is CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna authority for?

A sworn statement made under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be used as evidence in assessment proceedings.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna · section 132(4) · sworn statement · evidence · search and seizure · assessment · income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 115BBESection 69Section 69ASection 132(4A)

Issues it is cited on

section 114statement under section 132(4)retracted statementretraction of statementsection 158bcpanchnamasection 158bsection 132(1)section 158mliblock periodsection 158bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6761/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

DCIT, CC 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6759/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6757/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

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

…de that to effect that the earlier statements was recorded under pressure, coercion or compulsion by filing a complaint to higher officials. This position was reiterated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the 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 affida…

Shri Raju P. Mehta, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - II (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 173/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…the assessee if he is to retract the statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses unless there is evidence of pressure or coercion. The facts of each case have to be considered to reach the conclusion no universal rule. CIT Vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna: 344 ITR 352 (P & H] In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest, No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the…

Shri Raju P. Mehta, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - II (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 172/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…the assessee if he is to retract the statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses unless there is evidence of pressure or coercion. The facts of each case have to be considered to reach the conclusion no universal rule. CIT Vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna: 344 ITR 352 (P & H] In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest, No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the…

Shri Raju P. Mehta, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - II (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 170/CHNY/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…the assessee if he is to retract the statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses unless there is evidence of pressure or coercion. The facts of each case have to be considered to reach the conclusion no universal rule. CIT Vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna: 344 ITR 352 (P & H] In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest, No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the…

Shri Raju P. Mehta, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - II (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 169/CHNY/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…the assessee if he is to retract the statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses unless there is evidence of pressure or coercion. The facts of each case have to be considered to reach the conclusion no universal rule. CIT Vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna: 344 ITR 352 (P & H] In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest, No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the…

Shri Raju P. Mehta, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - II (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 171/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…the assessee if he is to retract the statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses unless there is evidence of pressure or coercion. The facts of each case have to be considered to reach the conclusion no universal rule. CIT Vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna: 344 ITR 352 (P & H] In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest, No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the…

Shri Raju P. Mehta, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - II (1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 168/CHNY/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…the assessee if he is to retract the statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses unless there is evidence of pressure or coercion. The facts of each case have to be considered to reach the conclusion no universal rule. CIT Vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna: 344 ITR 352 (P & H] In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest, No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil Aggarwal

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to

ITA - 224 / 2003HC Delhi02 Nov 2015
Section 132(4)Section 158Section 158B

…under Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement as, therefore, permissible. He also placed reliance on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna 344 ITR 352 to urge that an unsatisfactory explanation regarding the late retraction of a statement made during the course of the search proceedings would not be accepted, and would not impinge upon the authenticity of the statement made in the first place during the search proceedings. 13. The narration of facts hereinabove shows that the Assessee d…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil Aggarwal

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to

ITA/224/2003HC Delhi02 Nov 2015
Section 132(4)Section 158Section 158B

…under Section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs solely on the basis of the said retracted statement as, therefore, permissible. He also placed reliance on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna 344 ITR 352 to urge that an unsatisfactory explanation regarding the late retraction of a statement made during the course of the search proceedings would not be accepted, and would not impinge upon the authenticity of the statement made in the first place during the search proceedings. 13. The narration of facts hereinabove shows that the Assessee d…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rohit Kedar Nath Gupta

ITA/707/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

…le on the part of the assessee to complain of any violation of the rules of natural justice. It is a different matter that we have not accepted the retractions. 50. On the question of retractions, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna, (2012) 344 ITR 352 (P&H) it was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that where there is no explanation as to why the statement which was retracted in the course of the assessment proceedings was not withdrawn earlier, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing the presumption against the assessee and in making the addition. It was observed as under: -…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Asha Kedar Nath Gupta

ITA/948/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

…le on the part of the assessee to complain of any violation of the rules of natural justice. It is a different matter that we have not accepted the retractions. 50. On the question of retractions, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna, (2012) 344 ITR 352 (P&H) it was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that where there is no explanation as to why the statement which was retracted in the course of the assessment proceedings was not withdrawn earlier, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing the presumption against the assessee and in making the addition. It was observed as under: -…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nitin Kedar Nath Gupta

ITA/706/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

…le on the part of the assessee to complain of any violation of the rules of natural justice. It is a different matter that we have not accepted the retractions. 50. On the question of retractions, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna, (2012) 344 ITR 352 (P&H) it was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that where there is no explanation as to why the statement which was retracted in the course of the assessment proceedings was not withdrawn earlier, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing the presumption against the assessee and in making the addition. It was observed as under: -…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Mani Kakkar

ITA/892/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260A

…le on the part of the assessee to complain of any violation of the rules of natural justice. It is a different matter that we have not accepted the retractions. 50. On the question of retractions, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna, (2012) 344 ITR 352 (P&H) it was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that where there is no explanation as to why the statement which was retracted in the course of the assessment proceedings was not withdrawn earlier, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing the presumption against the assessee and in making the addition. It was observed as under: -…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kedar Nath Gupta

ITA-713/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 132Section 260A

…le on the part of the assessee to complain of any violation of the rules of natural justice. It is a different matter that we have not accepted the retractions. 50. On the question of retractions, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna, (2012) 344 ITR 352 (P&H) it was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that where there is no explanation as to why the statement which was retracted in the course of the assessment proceedings was not withdrawn earlier, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing the presumption against the assessee and in making the addition. It was observed as under: -…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/713/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 132Section 260A

…le on the part of the assessee to complain of any violation of the rules of natural justice. It is a different matter that we have not accepted the retractions. 50. On the question of retractions, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna, (2012) 344 ITR 352 (P&H) it was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that where there is no explanation as to why the statement which was retracted in the course of the assessment proceedings was not withdrawn earlier, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing the presumption against the assessee and in making the addition. It was observed as under: -…