CIT v. Pramukh Builders

112 ITD 179Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#1976 most cited

What is CIT v. Pramukh Builders authority for?

A statement made to tax authorities, even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, cannot be taken as conclusive evidence. Additions to income cannot be made solely by relying on such a statement, particularly if it is retracted.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Pramukh Builders · Pramukh Builders · 112 ITD 179 · section 132(4) · section 133A · retracted statement · evidentiary value of statement · conclusive evidence · additions based on statement · surrender of income · coercion

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 148Section 147

Issues it is cited on

surrender of incomeretracted statementstatement under section 132(4)section 131(1)section 134section 269tshell companysection 153a(1)(b)revision u/s 263right to receivesection 269sssection 142a

Judgments citing CIT v. Pramukh Builders

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…unshine Imports & Exports P. Ltd. (2020) 118 taxmann.com 123 (Bom.)  CIT Vs S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad.) Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  DCIT Vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 115 TTJ 330 (Ahd.)(TM)  ACIT Vs Ramanbhai B. Patel (2008) 12 DTR 471 (Ahd) (Trib)  ACIT Vs Jorawar Singh M. Rathod (2005) 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd.) 34. So far as statement of partner Mr. Rajesh Pengawala is concerned. The ld. AR submits that in his statement was recorded on 06.01.2010 during the survey from copy of pages placed on record. Though the Assessing Officer recorded in the table that Rajesh Pengawala in his stat…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Raj Enterprises, Surat

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

… M/s Sashi Wines Vs ITO (ITA No. 882/AHD/2017)  PCIT vs Sunshine Imports & Exports P. Ltd. (2020) 118 taxmann.com 123 (Bom.)  CIT Vs S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad.) Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  DCIT Vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 115 TTJ 330 (Ahd.)(TM)  ACIT Vs Ramanbhai B. Patel (2008) 12 DTR 471 (Ahd) (Trib)  ACIT Vs Jorawar Singh M. Rathod (2005) 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd.) 34. So far as statement of partner Mr. Rajesh Pengawala is concerned. The ld. AR submits that in his statement was recorded on 06.01.2010 during the survey from copy of pages placed on record. Though the Assessing Offi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed and the

ITA 533/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Sainia.Y. : 2009-10 Smt. Sushmita Gupta, Vs. Acit, Cc-2, 100, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 003 (Pan: Aczpg1440P) (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-32(1), Vs. Sh. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, Room No. 323, 3Rd Floor, 100, Sunder Nagar, Ara Centre New Delhi – 110 003 Jhandewalan Extn., (Pan: Aczpg1440P) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)

…) of Section 132 of the Act. The objective may be genuine, and the exercise may be legal. However, the freedom of a citizen that transcends, even the Constitution cannot be treated as non-existent ”. Dy. Commisioner Of Income Tax vs Pramukh Builders, (2008) 112 ITD 179, ITAT Ahmedabad Bench (Third Member) “ The first reason which the AM considers to be a crucial pointer is that K is the managing partner of the assessee firm and in fact, is one of the main persons who is in the know of the affairs of the business. This fact is undisputable. However, having retracted from the original statement, the latter d…

Smt. Sushmita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed and the

ITA 15/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Sainia.Y. : 2009-10 Smt. Sushmita Gupta, Vs. Acit, Cc-2, 100, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 003 (Pan: Aczpg1440P) (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-32(1), Vs. Sh. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, Room No. 323, 3Rd Floor, 100, Sunder Nagar, Ara Centre New Delhi – 110 003 Jhandewalan Extn., (Pan: Aczpg1440P) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)

…) of Section 132 of the Act. The objective may be genuine, and the exercise may be legal. However, the freedom of a citizen that transcends, even the Constitution cannot be treated as non-existent ”. Dy. Commisioner Of Income Tax vs Pramukh Builders, (2008) 112 ITD 179, ITAT Ahmedabad Bench (Third Member) “ The first reason which the AM considers to be a crucial pointer is that K is the managing partner of the assessee firm and in fact, is one of the main persons who is in the know of the affairs of the business. This fact is undisputable. However, having retracted from the original statement, the latter d…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai vs. Unity Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1761/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Unity Infraprojects Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 45, Mumbai 1252, Pushpanjali Apartments, Old Prabhadevi Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu4560E Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit-Cc-45, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Unity Infraprojects Ltd., 1252, Pushpanjali Apartments, Old Prabhadevi Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu4560E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…nce of exerting such pressure. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra) while holding so, apart from relying upon various decisions of the higher courts has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of "Dy CIT vs. Pramukh Builders" (2008) 112 ITD 179 (Ahd) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of pressure, threat coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement or a letter."…

Unity Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1304/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Unity Infraprojects Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 45, Mumbai 1252, Pushpanjali Apartments, Old Prabhadevi Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu4560E Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit-Cc-45, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Unity Infraprojects Ltd., 1252, Pushpanjali Apartments, Old Prabhadevi Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu4560E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…nce of exerting such pressure. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra) while holding so, apart from relying upon various decisions of the higher courts has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of "Dy CIT vs. Pramukh Builders" (2008) 112 ITD 179 (Ahd) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of pressure, threat coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement or a letter."…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 892/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…that the appellant did incur such expenditure in course of carrying on the business and the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove the non- genuineness of the expenses. In another case of DCIT vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 112 ITD 179 ITD 179 (Ahm) (TM) where the partners surrendered certain undisclosed statement in the course of search but retracted the same while filing the return, it was held that no addition could be justified merely on the basis of such a statement, in absence of any evidence regarding charging of on money by the said builder. The partner made the disclos…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 891/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…that the appellant did incur such expenditure in course of carrying on the business and the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove the non- genuineness of the expenses. In another case of DCIT vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 112 ITD 179 ITD 179 (Ahm) (TM) where the partners surrendered certain undisclosed statement in the course of search but retracted the same while filing the return, it was held that no addition could be justified merely on the basis of such a statement, in absence of any evidence regarding charging of on money by the said builder. The partner made the disclos…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 890/MUM/2009[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…that the appellant did incur such expenditure in course of carrying on the business and the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove the non- genuineness of the expenses. In another case of DCIT vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 112 ITD 179 ITD 179 (Ahm) (TM) where the partners surrendered certain undisclosed statement in the course of search but retracted the same while filing the return, it was held that no addition could be justified merely on the basis of such a statement, in absence of any evidence regarding charging of on money by the said builder. The partner made the disclos…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 889/MUM/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…that the appellant did incur such expenditure in course of carrying on the business and the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove the non- genuineness of the expenses. In another case of DCIT vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 112 ITD 179 ITD 179 (Ahm) (TM) where the partners surrendered certain undisclosed statement in the course of search but retracted the same while filing the return, it was held that no addition could be justified merely on the basis of such a statement, in absence of any evidence regarding charging of on money by the said builder. The partner made the disclos…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1528/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…that the appellant did incur such expenditure in course of carrying on the business and the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove the non- genuineness of the expenses. In another case of DCIT vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 112 ITD 179 ITD 179 (Ahm) (TM) where the partners surrendered certain undisclosed statement in the course of search but retracted the same while filing the return, it was held that no addition could be justified merely on the basis of such a statement, in absence of any evidence regarding charging of on money by the said builder. The partner made the disclos…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1527/MUM/2009[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…that the appellant did incur such expenditure in course of carrying on the business and the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove the non- genuineness of the expenses. In another case of DCIT vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 112 ITD 179 ITD 179 (Ahm) (TM) where the partners surrendered certain undisclosed statement in the course of search but retracted the same while filing the return, it was held that no addition could be justified merely on the basis of such a statement, in absence of any evidence regarding charging of on money by the said builder. The partner made the disclos…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1481/MUM/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…that the appellant did incur such expenditure in course of carrying on the business and the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove the non- genuineness of the expenses. In another case of DCIT vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 112 ITD 179 ITD 179 (Ahm) (TM) where the partners surrendered certain undisclosed statement in the course of search but retracted the same while filing the return, it was held that no addition could be justified merely on the basis of such a statement, in absence of any evidence regarding charging of on money by the said builder. The partner made the disclos…

ACIT Central Circle-9, Mumbai vs. M/S. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1402/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…that the appellant did incur such expenditure in course of carrying on the business and the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove the non- genuineness of the expenses. In another case of DCIT vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 112 ITD 179 ITD 179 (Ahm) (TM) where the partners surrendered certain undisclosed statement in the course of search but retracted the same while filing the return, it was held that no addition could be justified merely on the basis of such a statement, in absence of any evidence regarding charging of on money by the said builder. The partner made the disclos…

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Pravin B. Bhandarkar, Mumbai

ITA 6672/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

…nce of exerting such pressure. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra) while holding so, apart from relying upon various decisions of the higher courts has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of “Dy CIT vs. Pramukh Builders” (2008) 112 ITD 179 (Ahd.) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of pressure, threat, coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement or a letter…

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Prakash B Bhandarkar, Mumbai

ITA 6671/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

…nce of exerting such pressure. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra) while holding so, apart from relying upon various decisions of the higher courts has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of “Dy CIT vs. Pramukh Builders” (2008) 112 ITD 179 (Ahd.) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of pressure, threat, coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement or a letter…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Pandoo P. Naig, Mumbai

ITA 7364/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

…nce of exerting such pressure. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra) while holding so, apart from relying upon various decisions of the higher courts has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of “Dy CIT vs. Pramukh Builders” (2008) 112 ITD 179 (Ahd.) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of pressure, threat, coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement or a letter…

Pandurang Naig, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

ITA 7089/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

…nce of exerting such pressure. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra) while holding so, apart from relying upon various decisions of the higher courts has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of “Dy CIT vs. Pramukh Builders” (2008) 112 ITD 179 (Ahd.) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of pressure, threat, coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement or a letter…