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. K. Satish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

…ITA No.1988/Bang/2016 Sri K. Satish Kumar, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sri K. Satish Kumar, #4, 3rd Floor, Shirdi Sai Krupa Complex Nagappa Street, The Addl. CIT Vs. Seshadripuram Range-9 Bengaluru 560 020 Bengaluru PAN NO : ACZPK8076F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:…

ACIT, CC-3, Surat vs. Shri Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 197/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrps 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…t as recorded in the survey proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act. This is so held in the case of CIT V/s. S. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). The Hon'ble Madras High Court had observed as under in this particular case (CIT V/s. S. Khader Khan Sons (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.). "In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132 (4) enables the authorized officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded u/s. 133A is not given any evidentiary value obviously…

Sri.Dinakara Suvarna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the following:

ITA/16/2015HC Karnataka08 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 69B

…recorded under Section 133A of the Act is not given any evidentiary value because the officer is not authorised to administer oath and to take any sworn statement. Therefore, in view of 6 (2008) 300 ITR 157 I.T.A No.16/2015 13 the fact that the author of the diary had passed away and relevant entry has not been used in the case of Shri. Chowta himself, reversing the findings of the CIT (A) by the ITAT is n…

Fms Dental Hospitals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fms Dental Hospitals Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Koti, Hyderabad. Circle – 17(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacf3014G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri B. Statyanarayana Murthy, Ca Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dt.30.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Sri B. Statyanarayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292C

…no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee merely on the statement recorded during the course of survey. 6. In this connection, ld.AR relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in (2008) 300 ITR 157 wherein it was held as under : “dismissing the appeal, that in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey action under section 133A shall not have any evidentiary value. It could not be said solely on the basis of the statement given by one of the partners of the assessee firm that the disclosed income was…

Society for Welfare Awareness Research and Guidance, Delhi vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4702/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…nce of any contrary evidence' or explanation as to why statement made under section 133A of the Act was not credible, it could be acted upon. The Hon'ble Court also distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan (300 ITR 157). It was also held that in absence of assessee offering any explanation as to why statement could not be relied upon, no fault could be found on reliance upon statement of Director. As regards the request tor cross examination was concerned, it was held that the assessee, during first round, of proceedings before Assessing Officer did not raise a…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 145Section 148

….T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 10. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 145Section 148

….T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 10. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 145Section 148

….T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 10. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 145Section 148

….T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 10. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2…

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

ITA 1167/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

… CIT vs Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF) (2013) 84 DTR 365 (MP)  CIT vs Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del)  CIT vs P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad)  ITO vs Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 231 CTR 165 (Chattisgarh)  CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.) 32. The ld. AR submits that statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala was recorded on oath whereas the provisions of section 133A(3)(iii) do not permit the recording of his statement on oath during survey proceedings, thus, the statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is illegally and invalidly recorded. As provisions of section 133(1), the record to pro…

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

… CIT vs Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF) (2013) 84 DTR 365 (MP)  CIT vs Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del)  CIT vs P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad)  ITO vs Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 231 CTR 165 (Chattisgarh)  CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.) 32. The ld. AR submits that statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala was recorded on oath whereas the provisions of section 133A(3)(iii) do not permit the recording of his statement on oath during survey proceedings, thus, the statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is illegally and invalidly recorded. As provisions of section 133(1), the record to pro…

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

… CIT vs Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF) (2013) 84 DTR 365 (MP)  CIT vs Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del)  CIT vs P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad)  ITO vs Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 231 CTR 165 (Chattisgarh)  CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.) 32. The ld. AR submits that statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala was recorded on oath whereas the provisions of section 133A(3)(iii) do not permit the recording of his statement on oath during survey proceedings, thus, the statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is illegally and invalidly recorded. As provisions of section 133(1), the record to pro…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…two years, the assessee retracted the above said disclosure through his letter dated 16.12.2010. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by Ld CIT(A), but the ITAT, following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) deleted the addition on the ground that the income disclosed in the statement taken during the course of survey operations conducted u/s 133A is not legally binding. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that (i) the survey officials did not record statement during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act. (ii) It is the assessee who…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…two years, the assessee retracted the above said disclosure through his letter dated 16.12.2010. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by Ld CIT(A), but the ITAT, following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) deleted the addition on the ground that the income disclosed in the statement taken during the course of survey operations conducted u/s 133A is not legally binding. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that (i) the survey officials did not record statement during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act. (ii) It is the assessee who…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…two years, the assessee retracted the above said disclosure through his letter dated 16.12.2010. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by Ld CIT(A), but the ITAT, following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) deleted the addition on the ground that the income disclosed in the statement taken during the course of survey operations conducted u/s 133A is not legally binding. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that (i) the survey officials did not record statement during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act. (ii) It is the assessee who…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…two years, the assessee retracted the above said disclosure through his letter dated 16.12.2010. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by Ld CIT(A), but the ITAT, following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) deleted the addition on the ground that the income disclosed in the statement taken during the course of survey operations conducted u/s 133A is not legally binding. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that (i) the survey officials did not record statement during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act. (ii) It is the assessee who…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…two years, the assessee retracted the above said disclosure through his letter dated 16.12.2010. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by Ld CIT(A), but the ITAT, following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) deleted the addition on the ground that the income disclosed in the statement taken during the course of survey operations conducted u/s 133A is not legally binding. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that (i) the survey officials did not record statement during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act. (ii) It is the assessee who…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…two years, the assessee retracted the above said disclosure through his letter dated 16.12.2010. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by Ld CIT(A), but the ITAT, following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) deleted the addition on the ground that the income disclosed in the statement taken during the course of survey operations conducted u/s 133A is not legally binding. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that (i) the survey officials did not record statement during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act. (ii) It is the assessee who…

Mr. Manikkudi Jayaraman Mohan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2713/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…two years, the assessee retracted the above said disclosure through his letter dated 16.12.2010. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by Ld CIT(A), but the ITAT, following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) deleted the addition on the ground that the income disclosed in the statement taken during the course of survey operations conducted u/s 133A is not legally binding. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that (i) the survey officials did not record statement during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act. (ii) It is the assessee who…

M/S. Jindal Aluminium Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

WP/52269/2017HC Karnataka16 Mar 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

…prior to the assessment order dated 14.03.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14 and therefore, even the survey at the premises of the M/s Herbicure cannot have a live nexus to the reason to believe 4 (2008) 300 ITR 157 (MAD) 19 that there should be reassessment, and when there is no nexus, the reassessment would be impermissible. Hence, this Court must intervene even on this ground. 6 The submissions by Sri K.V. Aravind, the learned counsel for the revenue: 6.1 Sri K.V. Aravind, relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court…