CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

300 ITR 157High Court2008#155 most cited

What is CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son authority for?

A statement recorded under duress during a survey, if subsequently retracted, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for an income-tax assessment; the assessment should instead rely on audited accounts.

452

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son · S. Khader Khan Son · Section 133A · Section 132(4) · retracted statement · survey statement evidentiary value · statement under duress · assessment based on retracted statement · no evidentiary value for survey statement · audited accounts reliance

Also reported as

214 CTR 58940 Taxmann.com 329

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 115BBESection 132(4)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)retracted statementstatement under section 132(4)survey under section 133asection 269sssection 133asection 292csection 132(4a)loose paperssection 158bsection 133section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

Sri Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 11. Padan Chand Pungliya Vs. ACIT – 181 ITD 261 of ITAT Jaipur Bench. 12. CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggarwal – 241 Taxman 199 of Supreme Court. 13. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son – 352 ITR 480 of Supreme Court. 14. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son – 300 ITR 157 of Madras High Court. 15. CIT Vs. Ramdas Motor Transport – 238 ITR 177 of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 16. PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd – 397 ITR 82 of Delhi High Court. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9.1.…

ACIT Central Circle- 2(3), Hyderabad vs. Dcs Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asstt. C. I. T. Vs. Dcs Limited Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacd7127J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd Afzal Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy,Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Civil & Mining Contract. It Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act On 27.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,92,02,560/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which The A.R Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer From Time To Time & Filed The Requisite Details. Page 1 Of 13

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)

…during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders. Yours faithfully, (S. R. Mahapatra] Under Secretary (Inv. II) 16. We find the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S Khadar Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), while holding that the statement elicited during the survey operation has no evidentiary value has observed as under: "An admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The word 'may' used in section 133A(3…

ITO, Ward-3(1), Asansol vs. Sanjay Transport Agency, Ranigung

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross- appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol............................................................................….. Appellant Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency...............................................................…… …. Respondent 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & Shri Aryan Kochar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Filed By The Assessee & Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 22.09.2020 Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Ita No.567/Kol/2020 Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय शमा", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [PAN: AAVFS6659N] vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment year: 2010-11 I…

Sanjay Transport Agency, Raniganj vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross- appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 567/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol............................................................................….. Appellant Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency...............................................................…… …. Respondent 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & Shri Aryan Kochar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Filed By The Assessee & Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 22.09.2020 Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Ita No.567/Kol/2020 Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय शमा", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [PAN: AAVFS6659N] vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment year: 2010-11 I…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ision of this court in G.K. Senniappan's case reported in [2006] 284 ITR 220, while confirming the order of the Tribunal, answered the question in favour of the assessee, in limine. 15.49 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras), it had been held that an admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The word 'may' used in section 133A(3)(iii), viz., 'record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ision of this court in G.K. Senniappan's case reported in [2006] 284 ITR 220, while confirming the order of the Tribunal, answered the question in favour of the assessee, in limine. 15.49 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras), it had been held that an admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The word 'may' used in section 133A(3)(iii), viz., 'record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…ision of this court in G.K. Senniappan's case reported in [2006] 284 ITR 220, while confirming the order of the Tribunal, answered the question in favour of the assessee, in limine. 15.49 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras), it had been held that an admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The word 'may' used in section 133A(3)(iii), viz., 'record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any…

Late Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Surat

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…vey proceedings, the statement on oath is not permissible and the statements on oath taken during the survey proceedings is not valid and for that Ld. Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs S. Kader Khan Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad. HC), wherein it was held as follows: “From the foregoing discussion, the following principles can be culled out: ITA 1706/AHD/2016/AY.2010-11 (Late) Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora (i) An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to sh…

DCIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Gautamkumar & Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…ould not have made any profits in the sales, if the statement is accepted as true. (f) The statement taken during the course of survey does not have evidentiary value as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157). (g) All the facts read together would clearly point out that in the first place, there was no transaction outside the books as alleged in the Statement recorded/assessment order passed. Secondly, no taxable income was generated even if the transaction is presumed to be correct for a moment. Thirdly, there is no corroborative evidence brought o…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 01, Varanasi vs. M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Chandauli

ITA 136/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Shishir Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ake the addition. Here, the additions made by the AO in this case is purely based on the statement recorded during the survey and such statement has no evidentiary value in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS S. Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (SC) where Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission toshow that it is incorrect and that the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not correctly disclose t…

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)

…n (2012) 25 taxmaan.com 413 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department observing the same to be without any merit which was filed against the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT V/s S. Khadar Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.). The findings of Hon'ble High Court of Madras affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court which are very much relevant in the instant case of the appellant are reproduced hereunder: “7. From the foregoing discussion, the following principles can be culled out:- (i) An admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it…

M/S. Kanak Agro Infrastructure, Khandwa vs. The ITO Ward-1, Khandwa

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 911/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68Section 69

…x Act. The CIT (A) and Tribunal had rightly deleted addition by holding that merely on basis of such statement without corroboration, such addition could not be made. CIT Vs. Ms Dhingra Metal Works in ITA No.1111/2010 and (b) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), followed.” iii. High Court Of Kerala in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons v/s Commissioner of Income-tax [2003] 129 TAXMAN 416 (KER.) held that “Section 133A enables the income-tax authority only to record any statement of any person which may be useful but does not authorise for taking any sworn in statement. On the other hand, such power t…

Saaras Agro Industries, Khandwa vs. The ACIT, Khandwa

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 910/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68Section 69

…x Act. The CIT (A) and Tribunal had rightly deleted addition by holding that merely on basis of such statement without corroboration, such addition could not be made. CIT Vs. Ms Dhingra Metal Works in ITA No.1111/2010 and (b) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), followed.” iii. High Court Of Kerala in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons v/s Commissioner of Income-tax [2003] 129 TAXMAN 416 (KER.) held that “Section 133A enables the income-tax authority only to record any statement of any person which may be useful but does not authorise for taking any sworn in statement. On the other hand, such power t…

Dy. CIT CC -7(40), Mumbai vs. Shree Ambica Gems, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1769/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Biren ShahFor Respondent: Pitta Samuel
Section 133ASection 69A

…same may not be conclusive but in the absence of any contrary evidence or explanation as to why the statement made under Section 133A of the Act is not credible, it can be acted upon. The decision of Madras High Court in CIT v/s S Khader Khan Son reported in 300 ITR 157 as upheld by the Apex Court, is not of any assistance to the Appellant in the facts before the Court in S Khader Khan (supra), the person who made the statement under Section 133A of the Act had retracted it before the Assessment Order was passed. Moreover, in the absence of the Appellant Assessee offering any explanation as to why the statement…

DCIT Cor 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Build Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1100/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

…to the person, who made it, to show it has incorrectly been made and the person, making the statement should be given proper opportunity to show that it does not show the correct state of facts. Similar view is also held in the case of S. Khadar Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), wherein the honorable Madras High Court held that "A statement u/s 133A is not given any evidentiary value because the officer, taking the statement, is not authorized to ITA nos. 4122 /M/12 & 1100/M/13 Parmar Built Tech; A.Y. 09–10 administer an oath and record a sworn statement. The materials found in the course of the survey could not b…

ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Built Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 4122/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

…to the person, who made it, to show it has incorrectly been made and the person, making the statement should be given proper opportunity to show that it does not show the correct state of facts. Similar view is also held in the case of S. Khadar Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), wherein the honorable Madras High Court held that "A statement u/s 133A is not given any evidentiary value because the officer, taking the statement, is not authorized to ITA nos. 4122 /M/12 & 1100/M/13 Parmar Built Tech; A.Y. 09–10 administer an oath and record a sworn statement. The materials found in the course of the survey could not b…

M/S. Lotus Enterprise, Vadodara vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal for the Asst

ITA 1162/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. D.R. &
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

…nt recorded during survey had no meaning. Reliance was placed on the following decision in this regard: (i) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT [2003] 129 taxmann.com 416 (ii) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2012] 254 CTR 228 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (iv) CIT-III, vs. Golden Finance [2014] 220 taxmann.com 162 (Guj.) iii) Without prejudice to the above, ld. Counsel for the assesses contended that if the statement was held believable it could not in any case be applied across board to all the transactions undertaken by the assessee during the impugned three years. In this regard, Ld. Counsel f…

M/S. Lotus Enterprise, Vadodara vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal for the Asst

ITA 1161/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. D.R. &
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

…nt recorded during survey had no meaning. Reliance was placed on the following decision in this regard: (i) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT [2003] 129 taxmann.com 416 (ii) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2012] 254 CTR 228 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (iv) CIT-III, vs. Golden Finance [2014] 220 taxmann.com 162 (Guj.) iii) Without prejudice to the above, ld. Counsel for the assesses contended that if the statement was held believable it could not in any case be applied across board to all the transactions undertaken by the assessee during the impugned three years. In this regard, Ld. Counsel f…

M/S. Lotus Enterprise, Vadodara vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal for the Asst

ITA 1160/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. D.R. &
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

…nt recorded during survey had no meaning. Reliance was placed on the following decision in this regard: (i) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT [2003] 129 taxmann.com 416 (ii) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2012] 254 CTR 228 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (iv) CIT-III, vs. Golden Finance [2014] 220 taxmann.com 162 (Guj.) iii) Without prejudice to the above, ld. Counsel for the assesses contended that if the statement was held believable it could not in any case be applied across board to all the transactions undertaken by the assessee during the impugned three years. In this regard, Ld. Counsel f…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…ment proceedings on the basis of which it could justify the addition made. Statement recorded u/s 133A or 131 cannot be the sole basis for addition and appellant has heavily relied upon the judgment in the case of Assessing Officer v. S. KhaderKhan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) that has been upheld by apex court in Assessing Officer v. S. KhaderKhan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). After carefully considering the argument of the Assessing Officer. Counsel for the appellant and the judgments in the case of Assessing Officer v. S. Khader Khan Son, I find that facts in the case under consideration are squarely covered by…