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 366,314 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 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4321/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Virender Singh, DRFor Respondent: Miss Pritama Pokhrana, AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…any details found by the department, is not admissible in view of the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) and Hon’ble Madras High court tin the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras), wherein the unanimous view of the two High Courts that in the absence of any incriminating material the scope and ambit of the statement and disclosure made under section 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value. Similar are the facts in the present case the survey party of the 9 investigation wing of the department does not found any e…

Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 7285/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 153ASection 254

…n reply contended that the Act does not authorize to record the sworn statement during survey proceedings. Reliance was placed upon certain decisions like Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (129 taxman 416) (Ker), Madras High Court in CIT vs. S Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) (Mad), Pune Tribunal in Anil Nandkishore Goyal (ITA No.1256/P/2012 order dated 19.04.2013), the ratio laid down in All Cargo Global Logistics Limited by the Special Bench. 5.3 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the statement of Shri Sujal C Shah was re…

Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 7284/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 153ASection 254

…n reply contended that the Act does not authorize to record the sworn statement during survey proceedings. Reliance was placed upon certain decisions like Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (129 taxman 416) (Ker), Madras High Court in CIT vs. S Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) (Mad), Pune Tribunal in Anil Nandkishore Goyal (ITA No.1256/P/2012 order dated 19.04.2013), the ratio laid down in All Cargo Global Logistics Limited by the Special Bench. 5.3 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the statement of Shri Sujal C Shah was re…

Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 7283/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 153ASection 254

…n reply contended that the Act does not authorize to record the sworn statement during survey proceedings. Reliance was placed upon certain decisions like Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (129 taxman 416) (Ker), Madras High Court in CIT vs. S Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) (Mad), Pune Tribunal in Anil Nandkishore Goyal (ITA No.1256/P/2012 order dated 19.04.2013), the ratio laid down in All Cargo Global Logistics Limited by the Special Bench. 5.3 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the statement of Shri Sujal C Shah was re…

Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 7282/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 153ASection 254

…n reply contended that the Act does not authorize to record the sworn statement during survey proceedings. Reliance was placed upon certain decisions like Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (129 taxman 416) (Ker), Madras High Court in CIT vs. S Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157) (Mad), Pune Tribunal in Anil Nandkishore Goyal (ITA No.1256/P/2012 order dated 19.04.2013), the ratio laid down in All Cargo Global Logistics Limited by the Special Bench. 5.3 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the statement of Shri Sujal C Shah was re…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Hotel Aryaas, Tirunelveli

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1718/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT

…as no evidentiary value, therefore, assessment cannot be framed on the basis of the statement said to be made by Shri Jayaprakash Narayanan. The Ld. representative placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157. 4. Referring to the circulars issued by the CBDT in F.No.286/2/03 IT (INV) dated 10.03.2003 and 18.12.2014, the Ld. representative for the assessees submitted that the CBDT, being the apex administrative body to administer the direct taxes in the country, instructed its officers, including the Assessing Officers, to search for material evidenc…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Aryaas Super Market, Palayankottai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1717/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT

…as no evidentiary value, therefore, assessment cannot be framed on the basis of the statement said to be made by Shri Jayaprakash Narayanan. The Ld. representative placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157. 4. Referring to the circulars issued by the CBDT in F.No.286/2/03 IT (INV) dated 10.03.2003 and 18.12.2014, the Ld. representative for the assessees submitted that the CBDT, being the apex administrative body to administer the direct taxes in the country, instructed its officers, including the Assessing Officers, to search for material evidenc…

Sh. Didar Singh S/O Sh. Prem Singh, Kapurthala vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kapurthala

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 542/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Harminder Syal (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (Ld. DR)
Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 68

…] 263 ITR 101 (Ker) , which is reproduced herein below:- 10 Sh. Didar Singh, Kapurthala vs. DCIT 13. The Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) and Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Kader Khan, (2008) 300 ITR 157 have also taken a similar view. The relevant portion of the Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons (supra) is reproduced herein below :- "The provision also enables the income-tax authority to ………………………………………………………………………..no evidentiary value and the Income-tax Officer was well aware of this." 14. Moreover, the word „may‟…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.28. It is noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs UOI (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under:- “that from the perusal o…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3005/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.28. It is noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs UOI (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under:- “that from the perusal o…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3004/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.28. It is noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs UOI (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under:- “that from the perusal o…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2315/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.28. It is noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs UOI (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under:- “that from the perusal o…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.28. It is noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs UOI (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under:- “that from the perusal o…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2313/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.28. It is noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yuvraj vs UOI (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom.) held as under:- “that from the perusal o…

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S Lalitha Bullion Corporation, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Apr 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 133A

…oks of accounts and the same was examined during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings in their cases it will not become undisclosed income in the hands of appellant firm. 5.3. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Khadar Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 held that evidence collected and statements recorded during the survey u/s 133A were not conclusive piece of evidence by themselves.” M/s. Lalitha Bullion Corporation, Vijayawada 6. On going through the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and the submissions made by the assessee which is reproduced above, it is established that the sources for the capital a…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…ely on the basis of statement only then reopening I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. If the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal, w…

Mathura Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7096/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra,D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 68

…ce to the books of accounts or other evidences gathered either during survey or during the assessment proceedings as has been held in a series of decisions namely; 1. Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) 2. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) 3. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was complete lack of enquiry on the part of AO as the assessee furnished all the required information/material as desired by the AO during the course of assessments proceedings and secondly addition under section 68 of the Act is bad in law as has been…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Sai Anand Constrction, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1834/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sai Anand Construction, Tax, Shop No.22-27, Sai Tirth, Circle-3, Room No.02, Vs. Siddarth Nagar, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Kopri Colony, B-Wing, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane (E)- 400 603 Thane (W)-400 604 Pan: Aakfm 2891B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Shashi Tulsiyan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2018

For Appellant: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Tulsiyan, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…on for coming to the conclusion that the value of work in progress understated in the books of accounts. The Ld. A.R. relied heavily on a couple of decisions namely (1) Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT reported in 129 Taxmann 416(Ker) and CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras- HC). The Ld. A.R also submitted that the SLP filed in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.09.12. Finally, the Ld. A.R. prayed that in view of the above facts and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the High Courts the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is totally r…

S.J.Developers & Housing Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 417/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohatny, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…ated that same view has been taken by the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Smt. Usha Rani Talla,(2010) 6 ITR (Trib) 37(el). Ld A.R. also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), wherein, it was held that statement taken during the survey u/s.133A has no evidentiary value as section 133A does not empower the Assessing Officer to administer oath and take a sworn Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 13 statement. He, therefore, prayed that since the Director of the assessee company had stated to file the revised return with…

Amod Shivlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 795/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…eas presently we are dealing with a statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act at the time of survey. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader Khan Son (supra) has upheld the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case reported in 300 ITR 157, wherein the difference between Sec. 133A and 132(4) of the Act was noted and it was held that the statement u/s 133A of the Act would not have any evidentiary value. In fact, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such a statement made at the time of survey could not be the sole basis for assessing income in the hands of the assessee. On this aspect,…