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

ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Circle-1, P. No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Jodhpur. Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aadfv 4672 J

…idences in support of assessee claims were not accepted by the department. He has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Sanjeev Kumar v. Income-tax officer, [2014] 50 taxmann.com 114 (Chandigarh - Trib.) (ii) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) (iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC). (iv) Chawla Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 43 SOT 651 (Mum.) (v) Ramakrishnaiah vs. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 (HYD.) (vi) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs ACIT — [2005] 97 ITD 361 (AHD.) He has further submitted that from the evidence and documents submitted du…

Vinod L. Gadhiya, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2785/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 153A

…re sale transactions made in the open market as bogus based on the statements recorded during survey, which does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Khader Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (MAD) assumes significance, wherein it was 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 it, to show it has 49 ITA Nos.2785 to 2788/Mum/2019 & ors. Shri Vinod L. Gadhiya & ors. incorrectly been made and the person, making the statement s…

Income Tax Officer 4(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sajjan Kumar Bajoria, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7354/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7354/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Shri Sajjan Kumar Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2732-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7355/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Smt. Sushila Devi Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2731-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Jajodia u/s 133A during the course of survey proceedings would have no evidentiary value unless corroborated with cogent material and the same could not form the basis of addition in case of third-parties as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s S.Khader Khan 300 ITR 157 as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Ashish International (ITA No. 4299 of 2009 dated 22/02/2011). No opportunity of cross-examination of persons making adverse statement against the assessee was ever provided to the assessee. Further, the statement made by Shri Prakash Jajodia did not refer to any exchange of cash between the assessee…

Smt. Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 6/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 5/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 10/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…g material so as to enable the Assessing Officer to make additions in the hands of the Applicant. Further, it is also well settled that no addition could be made in the hands of the Assessee simply on the basis of a statement. Ref. S Khader Khan Sons - (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) affirmed in 352 ITR 480 (SC), Satinder Kumar v/s. ACIT- (1977) 106ITR 64 (HP). Not only that an admission or an acquiescence on the part of an assessee cannot be the foundation of assessment as held in various judicial pronouncements [Ref. Absalom v/s Talbot (1944) 26 Tax Cases 166, Abdul Qayumme v/s CIT- (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All), Mayank Po…

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…dings, statement recorded on oath are unwarranted and unjustified and are academic in nature. No cognizance therefore can be attached on such statements. The same therefore deserves to be ignored. In this regard reliance is placed on CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (SC) and Paul Mathews and Sons Vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.). The said position was further clarified by CBDT vide Circular no. 10 dated 2003, which clearly stated that focus and concentration should be on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…dings, statement recorded on oath are unwarranted and unjustified and are academic in nature. No cognizance therefore can be attached on such statements. The same therefore deserves to be ignored. In this regard reliance is placed on CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (SC) and Paul Mathews and Sons Vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.). The said position was further clarified by CBDT vide Circular no. 10 dated 2003, which clearly stated that focus and concentration should be on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax…

Anurag Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 24(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3186/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Anurag Agarwal, Ito – 24(1)(3), C-303, Orchid Enclave, 4Th Floor, J.B. Nagar, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Andheri (E), Lal Baug, Mumbai - 400059 Parel, Pan: Adtpa6534H Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja, A.R. Shri Mani Jain, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hari Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 68

…re sale transactions made in the open market as bogus based on the statements recorded during survey, which does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Khader Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (MAD) assumes significance, wherein it was 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 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 co…

M/S. Sanvira Holdings, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2351/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2351/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 M/S Sanvira Holdings, D.C.I.T., 1108, First Floor, Vs. Gandhinagar Circle, Plot No.231, Gandhinagar. Haveli Arcade, Sector-11, Gandhinagar-382011. Pan: Abufs9270M

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT.D.R with Shri L.P. jain, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 234ASection 271

…ction 133A of the Act until and unless it is based on corroborative evidences. Furthermore, the statement recorded on oath during the survey has no evidentiary value as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S Khader Khan Son reported in 300 ITR 157 which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 25 Taxmann.com 413 by observing as under: "Section 133A of the Income Act, 1961 - Survey - Whether Section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath; so statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such stat…

M/S.Kottakkal Wood Complex, Kottakkal vs. The ITO, Tirur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the Stay Petitions

ITA 593/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court and the Madras High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax (263 ITR 101) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008)_ 300 ITR 157 (Mad) respectively and the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the judgment of the Madras High Court was confirmed. On the other hand, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that the 6 I.T.A. Nos. 593-599/Coch/2019 & S.P. Nos. 68 to 74/Coch/2019 sta…

M/S. Kathyayini Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2329/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44A

…if there sworn statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, the addition cannot be sustained, as there is no supporting evidence suggesting any addition. The learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S.Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) wherein held that addition cannot be made only on the basis of admission during the course of survey and it shall be supported by supporting material and observed that section 133A of the Act does not empower the authority to examine any person on oath, hence such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement ca…

M/S. Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

ITA 1474/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16) Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 35(1)(ii)

…s not backed by any other supporting material. It would be pertinent to note that the sworn statement recorded during survey does not have any evidentiary value. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Khader Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) assumes significance, wherein it was 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 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 c…

M/S. Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

ITA 1473/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16) Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 35(1)(ii)

…s not backed by any other supporting material. It would be pertinent to note that the sworn statement recorded during survey does not have any evidentiary value. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Khader Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) assumes significance, wherein it was 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 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 c…

Crp Associates, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Cirle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1901/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1901/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Crp Associates Acit, Gandhinagar Cir. 117, First Floor Vs Gandhinagar. Suman City, Sector 11 Gandhinagar 382 010. Pan : Aaffc 9454 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…the amount of Rs.68,50,000/- towards unaccounted booking amount. Thus, on the strength of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, reported 210 taxman 248 (SC) which has upheld decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) he contended that statement recorded under section 133A is not admissible in evidence because authorized officer was not having jurisdiction to administer on oath to the deposer. It is just a corroborative evidence. There is no other evidence possessed by the Revenue except certain papers which were disclosed by the deponent that they were…

Rajda Polymers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-36, Kolkata

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2414/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 16Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…s not backed by any other supporting material. It would be pertinent to note that the sworn statement recorded during survey does not have any evidentiary value. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Khader Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) assumes significance, wherein it was held that :- LT.A. No. 23461K0V2018 Raj Karan Dassani Assessment Year: 2013-14 "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 it, to show it has incorrectly been made and the person, making the statement shoul…

M/S. Mohd Yousuf Kuchay & Other, Kashmir vs. The Assessing Officer, Srinagar (J&K)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/ASR/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.473/Asr/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Mohd Yousuf Kuchay & Vs. Assessing Officer, Range-3, Other Srinagar. C/O Jk Public School, New Airport Road, Humhama, Budgam, Kashmir.

For Appellant: Mr. M.A. Mir, Cost AccountantFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, D.R
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…s.34,29,615/- belongs to AOP or not. 4. Statement of the assessee on oath [Sh. Mohd Yousuf Kuchey] recorded by AO are not supported by corroborative evidence. For that we rely on the Judgment of the Hon`ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s S. Khader Khan 300 ITR 157 (Mad), wherein it was held as follows: “In the instant case, there was a survey operation conducted under s. 133A in the assessee’s premises and a statement was recorded from one of the partners. Assuming there were discrepancies and irregularities in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, an offer of additional income for the respect…

M/S.Prince Roller Flour Mills P. Ltd, Palakkad vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 36/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…were recorded under threat and coercion and retracts from the same, the confessional statements cannot be the sole basis for making assessments or for making any addition in the hands of the assessee. 12.7 Further, in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157), the Madras High Court held as follows: “The principles relating to section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are as follows: (i) 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 and that the assessee should be…

Shri Sayyed Hamid Ali, Ujjain vs. The ACIT Circle 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nister oath and to take any sworn in statement which alone has the evidentiary value as contemplated under law. Therefore the statement elicited during the survey operation has no evidentiary value. Similar view is taken in CIT vs. S. Khader Khan songs (2008) 300 ITR 157 (mad) [SLP filed by the department dismissed -210 Taxman 248/254 CTR 228(SC). 21. We find that in the case of Ashok Hanilal Thakkar vs. ACIT-279 ITR 143 (I.T.A.T.-AHM) No addition in come on the basis of disclosure could be made where the assessee had retracted certain income after disclosing it and no material had been found to prove this income…