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 366,005 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

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central -2 vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Ferns N Petals

ITA/308/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…Section 132 (4) of the Act. The statement made during a survey, even if mistakenly taken on oath, has no probative or binding value as was explained in CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad); CIT v Sunrise Tooling System Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-134-HC-DEL-IT and the decision dated 2nd January, 2013 in Tax Case No. 8/1999 of the Jharkhand High Court in Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax. Reference was also made to the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes („CBDT‟) on 10th March, 2003 and…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Ferns N Petals

ITA/310/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…Section 132 (4) of the Act. The statement made during a survey, even if mistakenly taken on oath, has no probative or binding value as was explained in CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad); CIT v Sunrise Tooling System Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-134-HC-DEL-IT and the decision dated 2nd January, 2013 in Tax Case No. 8/1999 of the Jharkhand High Court in Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax. Reference was also made to the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes („CBDT‟) on 10th March, 2003 and…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Fersn N Petals

ITA/307/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…Section 132 (4) of the Act. The statement made during a survey, even if mistakenly taken on oath, has no probative or binding value as was explained in CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad); CIT v Sunrise Tooling System Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-134-HC-DEL-IT and the decision dated 2nd January, 2013 in Tax Case No. 8/1999 of the Jharkhand High Court in Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax. Reference was also made to the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes („CBDT‟) on 10th March, 2003 and…

ITO, WD-11(4), Kolkata vs. Ambika Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1860/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133ASection 142(1)

…1 Ambika Sarees Pvt. Ltd. AY 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1860/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income-tax Officer, Wd-11(4), Kolkata Vs. Ambika Sarees Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AADCA1323L) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 30.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement 24.05.2017 For the Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, DR For the Respondent Shri Sunil Sharma, FCA ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata dated 11.07.2014 for AY 2011-12. 2. Ground…

Ratan Taxtiles P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 527/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

…& 595/JP/2016 with Ors. 5 appeals_ 16 M/s Ratan Textiles P Ltd. Vs DCIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC)dismissed the civil appeal by the income tax department and confirmed the order 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 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras that: “From the foregoing discussion, the following principles can be culled out: (i) An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect and that the a…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of time then retraction carries more weight. The assessee never alleged that the statement was recorded under duress and threat. 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, thus, under the peculiar facts in the present appeal, the cases relied upon by the assessee are not of much help as is clearly oozing out from the contents…

Mighty Constructions (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 6551/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mighty Construction Pvt. Dcit, Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-9(2), 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Universal Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Business Park, Chandivali Farm Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Off Saki Vihar Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcm3581C यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Suman Kumar-Dr

Section 133ASection 144ASection 80G

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, ‘फी’,म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री अश्वनी तनेजा, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Mighty Construction Pvt. DCIT, Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-9(2), 6th Floor, A-Wing, Universal Room No.218, 2nd Floor, Vs. Business Park, Chandivali Farm Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Off Saki Vihar Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) PAN. No.AADCM3581C यनधाारयती की ओर…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…it the course of survey proceedings does 11 M/s. Heeralal Meghraj Doshi not have any evidentiary value. In this regard, the appellant relies upon the following decisions- Paul Mathew & Sons v. CIT [2003[ 263 ITR 101 (Ker) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad) [SLP filed by the Department dismissed -210 Taxman 248/254 CTR 228 (SC) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works 328 ITR 384 (Del) Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO [2008] 22 SOT 429 (Mum) DClT v. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mum) (w) The appellant further submits in this regard that the CBDT nas issued instruction dated 10/03/2003 wherein it is categoricall…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…e weight. The assessee never alleged that the statement was recorded under duress and threat. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision 28 M/s M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 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, thus, under the peculiar facts in the present appeal, the cases relied upon by the assessee are not of much help as is clearly oozing out from the contents…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCK7376A Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.05.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi. 2. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal:…

M/S. Ashok & Co., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 312/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-312/Del/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 133A

…the assessee had retraced these statements. The case laws relied upon are as follows: i) CIT V Dr. N. Thippa Setty 525 ITR 322 (Karn) ii) CIT V M/s. Dhingra Metal Works 2010 TIOL 693 HC Del-IT iii) Paul Mathews & Sons V CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker) iv) Kader Khan 300 ITR 157 (Mad) v) S Arjun Singh V CWT 1989 175 ITR 91 vi) Asst. CIT V Monorajyam 1996 54 TTJ 97 (Coch) vii) Ashok Manilal Thakkar V A. CIT 2005 97 ITD 361(Ahd) 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that vide instruction no. F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) dated March 10, 2003; the Board has pointed the instances where the assessee has been forced to confess undi…

M/S. Raiganj R.C.C. Spun Pipe Industries Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Dinajpur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Jalpaiguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2163/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Divakar Chakraborty, JCIT
Section 131Section 133A

…ons of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the revenue authorities. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Mad) wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that there can be evidentiary value attached to the statement recorded at the time of survey. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed ITA No.2163/Kol/2014- M/s. Raniganj R.C.C. Spun Pipe Industries Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 out that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has been confirmed…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Bansal Credits Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3918/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jain, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate
Section 133ASection 68

…etal Works – [2010] 328 ITR 324 (Delhi) stated that the statement recorded u/s 133A is not conclusive and the addition cannot be based upon the statement. Similar view was expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras). The decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court is approved by Hon’ble Apex Court in [2012] 254 CTR 228 (SC). He further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee produced all the evidences in support of the genuineness of credit. The evidences produced by the assessee were more than 7,000 pages. The Assessing O…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 vs. M/S Iibs Infonet Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/585/2016HC Delhi14 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 133ASection 260A

…the appellant’s income included in the assessment? The assessee was subjected to survey under Section 133A during the course of which his statement was recorded. The tribunal relied upon the decision reported as CIT vs. S Khakder Khan reported as (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) and CIT, Ranchi vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain reported in (2009) 33 SOT 251 (Del). The revenue urges that the decision in CIT vs. MAK Data Pvt. Ltd.(2013) 352 ITR 1 (Del) was overlooked. It is stated that the Court in that judgment ruled that such statements can be the sole basis for completing assessment and adding to the income of th…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4350/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…wing judicial pronouncements:  ACIT Vs Dr. J. Mohan ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 575 to 582/ (Mds)/ 2011  ACIT Vs. Smt. M. Maheswari, ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 583 to 589/(Mds)/2011  Paul Matheuis and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)  CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157)(Mad)  Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT (279 ITR(AT)143) (Ahmedabad) 7. In support of the preposition that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath, reliance can be placed on the following decisions: (A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10) • CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2012 25 taxmann.com 413) SC • Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT [2003] 12…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4349/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…wing judicial pronouncements:  ACIT Vs Dr. J. Mohan ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 575 to 582/ (Mds)/ 2011  ACIT Vs. Smt. M. Maheswari, ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 583 to 589/(Mds)/2011  Paul Matheuis and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)  CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157)(Mad)  Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT (279 ITR(AT)143) (Ahmedabad) 7. In support of the preposition that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath, reliance can be placed on the following decisions: (A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10) • CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2012 25 taxmann.com 413) SC • Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT [2003] 12…

Sunshine Import & Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4348/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…wing judicial pronouncements:  ACIT Vs Dr. J. Mohan ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 575 to 582/ (Mds)/ 2011  ACIT Vs. Smt. M. Maheswari, ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 583 to 589/(Mds)/2011  Paul Matheuis and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)  CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157)(Mad)  Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT (279 ITR(AT)143) (Ahmedabad) 7. In support of the preposition that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath, reliance can be placed on the following decisions: (A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10) • CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2012 25 taxmann.com 413) SC • Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT [2003] 12…

Sri. Tulasiram, Channapatna vs. ITO, Mandya

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

ITA 537/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C. N, JCIT
Section 131Section 133A

…CIT (A) did not meet with any success. 04. Now before us, Ld. AR submitted that the additions were solely based on statements recorded at the time of survey. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Khader Khan Son [(2008) 300 ITR 157], Ld. AR submitted that addition made solely based on the statements recorded during the course of survey would not stand since such statements had no evidentiary value. Ld. AR pointed out that SLP filed by the Department against the said judgment was dismissed on 20.09.2012 and reported as (2013) 352 ITR 480. Further reliance was also placed…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…ld. CIT(A) both assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 12. It was argued by ld. AR that merely on the basis of statement recorded during course of survey u/s.133A an addition cannot be made as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kadar Khan 300 ITR 157. Our attention was also invited to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 wherein Madras High Court, held as under :- "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…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…ld. CIT(A) both assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 12. It was argued by ld. AR that merely on the basis of statement recorded during course of survey u/s.133A an addition cannot be made as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kadar Khan 300 ITR 157. Our attention was also invited to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 wherein Madras High Court, held as under :- "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…