How many judgments cite CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son?

452 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 147, Section 148, Section 115BBE.

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 133A Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 147 Section 148 Section 115BBE Section 132(4)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)retracted statement statement under section 132(4)survey under section 133a section 269ss section 133a section 292c section 132(4a)loose papers section 158b section 133 section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

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

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

ITA 21/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 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 Narendra Kumar Simhal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1 (2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Narendra Kumar Simhal (Huf) Ito-1(2) बनाम/ Prop:- M/S Alankar Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 30, Roshanpura, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aachn2629G Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Advs Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 27.03.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 25.02.2016 By Ito- 1(2), Bhopal.

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

…7 : [2003J 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) has held that the statement recorded under s. 133A has no evidentiary value. The same view has been reiterated recently by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008J 214 CTR (Mad.) 5~9 : [2008J 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) holding that s. 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath and hence such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made in such statement cannot, by itself, be made he basis for addition. It is pertinent to note that the SLP against the S. Kader Khan's case was dismissed by Supreme Court vide order [2…

Murtuza Inayathusein Bohari, Dhule vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhule

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

ITA 1212/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Tandale

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “एक सद"य” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1212/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Murtuza Inayathusein Bohari, ………. अपीलाथ" / Prop. Raj Electricals, Appellant Amba Bazar, Shirpur, Tal. Shirpur, Dhule – 425 405. PAN : ABAPB5543L. बनाम v/s The Income Tax Officer, ………. ""यथ" / Ward 1, Dhule. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prayag Jha. Revenue by : Shri Yashwant Tandale. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 19.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 2…

M/S. Shiv Pujan Developers, Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 399/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2012-13 M/S.Shiv Pujan Develpers Ito, Ward-3 Mehsana. C/O. Jigneshkuamr Purushottambhai Vs. Patel, Abf-12, First Floor, Shivam Plaza Borisana Three Road Opp: Borisana Petrol Pump Kalol (N.G.)-382 721. Pan : Abtfs 2833 H

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…taxmann.com 413 (SC). He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 101. He placed on record copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader khan (supra) reported in 300 ITR 157. With regard to the recovery of diary, he alleged that an affidavit was filed by the assessee retracting the statement given at the time of survey and also alleged that this diary was created by the Revenue authorities. The ld.counsel for the assessee took an alternative plea whereby he contended that the AO himself has alleged that amounts refle…

Shri Gordhanlal Vani (Deceased), Ratlam vs. ACIT, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 492/IND/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Babulal Vani Acit Prop. M/S. Babulal Ramlal Ratlam बनाम/ Vani Vs. 50, Laxmiganj, Jobat, Dist. Jhabua (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aazpv7706M Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Gordhanlal Vani Acit (Deceased) Ratlam बनाम/ Prop. M/S. Gordhanlal Vs. Ramlal Vani (Through Son & Legal Heir Shri Yogendra Vani) 50, Laxmiganj, Jobat, Dist. Jhabha (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aazpv7706M

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on various [ITA Nos.491&492/Ind/2018] [Shri Babulal Vani, Jhabua] case laws. More particularly, decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras rendered in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pillangode Rubber Produce Co. Vs. State of Kerala and another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). Therefore, he submitted that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.26,80,998/- may please be deleted. 4. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supporte…

Shri Babulal Vani, Jhabua vs. ACIT, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 491/IND/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Section 133ASection 143(3)

Hitachi High- Technologies (Singapore) Pte Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2683/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri, PCIT, Udaipur

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 234A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2683 to 2688/DEL/2015 [A.Ys 2002-03 to 2007-08] Hitachi High Technologies Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Singapore Pte Ltd Circle - Gurgaon, ASA & Associates, CAs International Taxation 81/1, Third Floor, Adchini New Delhi Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi PAN: AABCH 7717 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Anand Sachar, CA Shri Neeraj K. Jain, Adv Shri Karan Jain, CA Shri Ramit Katyal, CA Department By : Shri Sanjay Puri, P…

M/S. Computer Force, Daman vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3140/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3140/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Computer Force, V. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 376/2(14) Zari Causeway Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Road, Opp. Grounds Of Appeal State Co-Op, Bank Kachigam, Daman - 396 193. [Pan: Aacfc 6893 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 19.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 10.10.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06 Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs.9,16,971/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Income Tax Act,1961 (In Shot Of The Act)By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vapi Circle –Vapi (The Ao).

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…nt , section 133A does not empower the AO to examine any person on oath hence, statement recorded during survey under section 133A has no evidentiary value in the light of decision of Hon`ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Sons (2008) 300 ITR 157(Mad) affirmed by Hon`ble Page 3 of 6 Computer Force, Daman v. ACIT-Vapi/I.T.A. No. 3140/AHD/2014/A.Y.05-06 Supreme Court in 214 CTR 589 (Mad) and Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC) and CBDT Instruction 286/2/2003-IT(Inv). However, CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty by observing that the assessee could not est…

Sanjay Dangi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22 & 30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6908/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Dangi, Deputy Commissioner Of 61, 6Th Floor, Twinstar Venus Co., Income Tax, Vs. Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., Cuffee Parade, Central Circle-22 & 30, Colaba, Mumbai Mumbai [Pan : Ahspd6986H]

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…corded u/s.132(4) of the Act but when the same is explained with reference purchase bills and payment details then the same cannot be treated as ‘un-disclosed income’. The case of assessee is also squarely covered by the decision of CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157] (Madras), wherein it has been held that the statement has no evidentiary value unless corroborating evidences are there to support the same. Even the case of assessee is fully supported by the Instruction F.No.286/2/2003IT(Inv-II) issued by CBDT which states no confession of additional income during the course of search and seizure and survey op…

DCIT - 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4984/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 4984/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-9(2)(1), 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2782M प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 351/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 4984/Mum/2017 For Ay 2014-15) M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Income Tax-9(2)(1), Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DRFor Respondent: Shri B.v. Jhaveri, AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…that statements recorded during survey proceedings would have no evidentiary value unless corroborated with circumstantial evidences or cogent material to substantiate the same. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in similar factual matrix in CIT V/s S. Khader Khan[300 ITR 157] after considering 12 C.O.No. 351/Mum/2018 the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. V/s State of Kerala[91 ITR 18] &Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Paul Matthews and Sons V/s CIT [263 ITR 101] culled out following principle as to statement made during survey operations u/s 133A: - From the foregoing di…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastucture & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA Dy. CIT, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/s. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AADCA3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & CO No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda

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

ITA 1659/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Panday, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…y proceedings. Thus we are reluctant to place our reliance on the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act. Regarding this we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan son reported in 300 ITR 157 wherein it was held 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)(iii ), viz., 'record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Best Paper Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 975/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…at composite yield during the year was around 83.44% which stood corroborated by the finding of Ld. AO that actual yield on the date of survey was approx. 83%. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in CIT V/s S.Khader Khan [300 ITR 157] as confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 352 ITR 480. Reliance was also placed on CBDT Comm. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10/03/2003 to submit that departmental authorities were not be obtain confessions as to undisclosed income but concentrate on the collection of evidence of undisclosed income. 4.5 The assessee also controverted the…

Best Paper Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 772/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Mukesh B. Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6249/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Mukesh B Sharma Income Tax Officer-11(3)(2) Room No. 428, 4Th Floor Bldg. No. F, C202, Akshay Mittal Indl. Estate, 1St Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Pan – Aahps1995D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Respondent By: Shri D.G. Pansari Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30-07- 2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-36, Mumbai & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Though The Assessee Had Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal, We Find That The Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld Cita Was Justified In Upholding The Action Of The Ld Ao In Treating The Sale Consideration Of Shares Of Rs 7,88,77,854/- As Bogus & Consequentially Denying The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee U/S 10(38) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Interconnected Issue Involved Therein Is As To Whether The Ld Cita Was Justified In Confirming The Addition Made U/S 69C Of The Act In The Sum Of Rs.39,43,893/- Towards Commission On Sale Proceeds Of Shares In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

…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…

Raj Karan Dassani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2346/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2346/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Karan Dassani......………………..………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Adnpd 8826 B] Ito, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 16Section 250Section 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 :- 12 I.T.A. No. 2346/Kol/2018 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 stateme…

Shri Heera Chand Jain, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 964/JPR/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (ACIT)

Section 131ASection 133ASection 139Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ort of his contentions, he has relied upon the various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported 300 ITR 157. The ld. AR has thus submitted that the statement recorded U/s 133A has no evidentiary value and therefore, the addition made by the AO on the basis of the surrendered income made U/s 133A of the Act cannot be a basis for penalty U/s 271(i)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision Hon’ble Culcutta High Court in case of Durga…

M/S Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 690/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

Section 143(3)

…be recorded on oath: -There is no evidentiary value of the statements recorded during survey proceedings unless corroborative evidence are brought on record. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (MAD.) The views of the Madras High Court have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the Department. [S. Khader Khan Son [2012] 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC). It is a settled legal proposition that additions made merely and solely on the basis of statements recorded with no corroborative material on record has no…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi). The Ld. DR further submits that in the case of Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (2…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68