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.

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 157)

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 407/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…facts during the stress of the search. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros. 339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases result…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 406/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…facts during the stress of the search. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulte…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 405/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…facts during the stress of the search. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases result…

Bysani Adinarayagupatha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 404/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…facts during the stress of the search. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulte…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 402/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…facts during the stress of the search. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros. 339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases result…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 401/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…facts during the stress of the search. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulte…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 400/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…facts during the stress of the search. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases result…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 399/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…facts during the stress of the search. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases result…

Saroj Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 367/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.367/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Saroj Gupta Acit (Central Circle) M/S Aakash Hospital & Diagnostic बनाम/ Vs. Railway Board Building Main Bazar, Nalagarh (Hp) -174101 The Mall, Shimla (Hp) 171003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahvpg-9358-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 27-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessingofficer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 26-09-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Twin Additions Of Rs.41.94 Lacs & Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133A(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ression for whole of the year. For payment of alleged referral commission, there is no incriminating material but the same is merely on the basis of statements alone. As per settled legal position by case law of Hon’ble Madras High Court in S. KhaderKhan Son (300 ITR 157)as confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court (reported as 352 ITR 480), such statements u/s 133A would not carry much evidentiary value. If the recorded statements are ignored then in such a case, except for incriminating material for only a small part of the year, there is no evidence of sales suppression or alleged unaccounted referral commission payment…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ditors u / s 133 ( 6 ) who confirmed these transactions . It was argued by the AR that statement recorded u / s 131 consequent to survey cannot be sole basis for addition and heavily relied upon the judgement in the case of CIT v . S. Khader Khan Son ( 2008 ) 300 ITR 157 ( Mad ) that has been upheld by apex court in CIT v . S. Khader Khan Son ( 2013 ) 352 ITR 480 ( SC ) . As regards, unsecured loan raised from M/s Cooper Commercial Pvt. Ltd., assessee has furnished confirmation, copy of ITR of A.Y.2016-17, Balance sheet for A.Y.2018-19 and copy of bank statement. It is not out of place to mention that during the…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ditors u / s 133 ( 6 ) who confirmed these transactions . It was argued by the AR that statement recorded u / s 131 consequent to survey cannot be sole basis for addition and heavily relied upon the judgement in the case of CIT v . S. Khader Khan Son ( 2008 ) 300 ITR 157 ( Mad ) that has been upheld by apex court in CIT v . S. Khader Khan Son ( 2013 ) 352 ITR 480 ( SC ) . As regards, unsecured loan raised from M/s Cooper Commercial Pvt. Ltd., assessee has furnished confirmation, copy of ITR of A.Y.2016-17, Balance sheet for A.Y.2018-19 and copy of bank statement. It is not out of place to mention that during the…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1 Thane, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d under duress which was retracted a few days later. It was claimed that the whole case of the AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 37…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions), Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 378/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d under duress which was retracted a few days later. It was claimed that the whole case of the AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 37…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d under duress which was retracted a few days later. It was claimed that the whole case of the AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 37…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 376/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d under duress which was retracted a few days later. It was claimed that the whole case of the AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. आयकर अपीलीय आधकरण INCOM…

Mumbra Shikhshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 375/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d under duress which was retracted a few days later. It was claimed that the whole case of the AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. आयकर अपीलीय आधकरण INCOM…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d under duress which was retracted a few days later. It was claimed that the whole case of the AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 37…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…circumstantial evidences, no addition can be made on the basis of statement recorded during the survey in the case of third party. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), which has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 254 CTR 228(SC) by dismissing the SLP of the revenue. Reliance also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), wherein, it is held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any per…

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…circumstantial evidences, no addition can be made on the basis of statement recorded during the survey in the case of third party. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), which has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 254 CTR 228(SC) by dismissing the SLP of the revenue. Reliance also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), wherein, it is held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any per…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

…the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 10, 2003 with regard to confession statement of additional income during the course of search and seizure and survey operations, the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) has summarised the principles as under: ITA No.1167 & CO-37/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) Ram Battery India Pvt Ltd :: 10 :: (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 give…

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

What is CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

Bysani Adinarayagupatha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

Saroj Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1 Thane, Thane

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions), Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

Mumbra Shikhshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode