CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

352 ITR 480Supreme Court of India2013#104 most cited

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

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

581

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son · Section 133A · survey proceedings · evidentiary value · statement on oath · corroborative evidence · additions to income · uncorroborated statement · basis of assessment · Section 131 · retracted statement

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 413254 CTR 22825 Taxmann 413

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 147Section 132(4)Section 132Section 153ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)survey under section 133aretracted statementsection 158bbstatement under section 132(4)section 133asection 133section 292cblock periodsection 132(4)loose paperssection 131

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

M/S.Lohajit Foundations Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD)Corporate Ward4(4), Chennai

ITA 796/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel (Advocate)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…gh banking channel. The assessee also pleaded that statement taken during survey proceedings would not hold any evidentiary value as per the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Khader Khan Sons (300 ITR 157) and confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (352 ITR 480). 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) perused the Income Tax Settlement Application of Shri V. Venkatachalam and concurred with the factum of settlement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced that the declaration made by that individual for Rs.471.44 Crores included the amount given to the assessee. This claim was vague and had no co-relation to the amount admitt…

M/S Lohajit Foundations Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD)Corporate Ward4(4), Chennai

ITA 795/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel (Advocate)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…gh banking channel. The assessee also pleaded that statement taken during survey proceedings would not hold any evidentiary value as per the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Khader Khan Sons (300 ITR 157) and confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (352 ITR 480). 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) perused the Income Tax Settlement Application of Shri V. Venkatachalam and concurred with the factum of settlement. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced that the declaration made by that individual for Rs.471.44 Crores included the amount given to the assessee. This claim was vague and had no co-relation to the amount admitt…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Psa Construction, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.145/RPR/2018 (Assessment Years: 2014-2015) ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur Vs PSA Construction, 24B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony Raipur PAN No. :AAHFP 3578 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Dat…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. Poonam Developers LLP, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 320/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…ore finalizing of books of accounts, which are duly audited and also considering the fact that statements given during the course of survey does not carry any evidentiary value as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan & Sons. (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and therefore, ld. AO before declining the claim of the assessee ought to have referred to any discrepancy or defect in the books of account. 16. Since the Revenue has failed to bring out any such fact on record, we hold that no addition was called for undisclosed stock at Rs. 5,02,028/-. Thus, to conclude, we hold that addition for undisclo…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. Poonam Developers LLP, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 319/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…ore finalizing of books of accounts, which are duly audited and also considering the fact that statements given during the course of survey does not carry any evidentiary value as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan & Sons. (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and therefore, ld. AO before declining the claim of the assessee ought to have referred to any discrepancy or defect in the books of account. 16. Since the Revenue has failed to bring out any such fact on record, we hold that no addition was called for undisclosed stock at Rs. 5,02,028/-. Thus, to conclude, we hold that addition for undisclo…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. Poonam Developers LLP, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 318/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…ore finalizing of books of accounts, which are duly audited and also considering the fact that statements given during the course of survey does not carry any evidentiary value as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan & Sons. (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and therefore, ld. AO before declining the claim of the assessee ought to have referred to any discrepancy or defect in the books of account. 16. Since the Revenue has failed to bring out any such fact on record, we hold that no addition was called for undisclosed stock at Rs. 5,02,028/-. Thus, to conclude, we hold that addition for undisclo…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 286/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…ore finalizing of books of accounts, which are duly audited and also considering the fact that statements given during the course of survey does not carry any evidentiary value as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan & Sons. (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and therefore, ld. AO before declining the claim of the assessee ought to have referred to any discrepancy or defect in the books of account. 16. Since the Revenue has failed to bring out any such fact on record, we hold that no addition was called for undisclosed stock at Rs. 5,02,028/-. Thus, to conclude, we hold that addition for undisclo…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 285/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…ore finalizing of books of accounts, which are duly audited and also considering the fact that statements given during the course of survey does not carry any evidentiary value as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan & Sons. (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and therefore, ld. AO before declining the claim of the assessee ought to have referred to any discrepancy or defect in the books of account. 16. Since the Revenue has failed to bring out any such fact on record, we hold that no addition was called for undisclosed stock at Rs. 5,02,028/-. Thus, to conclude, we hold that addition for undisclo…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 284/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…ore finalizing of books of accounts, which are duly audited and also considering the fact that statements given during the course of survey does not carry any evidentiary value as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan & Sons. (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and therefore, ld. AO before declining the claim of the assessee ought to have referred to any discrepancy or defect in the books of account. 16. Since the Revenue has failed to bring out any such fact on record, we hold that no addition was called for undisclosed stock at Rs. 5,02,028/-. Thus, to conclude, we hold that addition for undisclo…

Kamal Batra, Roorkee vs. DCIT, Circle Haridwar, Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3375/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11
Section 133ASection 148Section 44A

…ing survey proceedings. It is trite law that the statement recorded during survey proceedings does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Sons, reported in 352 ITR 480 and decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathew and Sons Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101. 5 AY: 2010-11 8. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, the action of the lower authorities in clubbing the business income of assessee’s wife with that of the assessee in th…

ACIT Circle-28(1), Delhi vs. Sam Overseas, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…) 300 ITR 157 (Mad)]. The ld. Sr. Counsel 38 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 for the assessee submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son [(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)] by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 36. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of authorities below and the evidences furnished before us. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of ready-made garments filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring loss of Rs.83,38,278/-. A survey was carried…

Sam Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…) 300 ITR 157 (Mad)]. The ld. Sr. Counsel 38 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 for the assessee submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son [(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)] by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 36. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of authorities below and the evidences furnished before us. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of ready-made garments filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring loss of Rs.83,38,278/-. A survey was carried…

Disha Education Society, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result ground of the appeal in the instant appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 60/RPR/2019[0]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.32&60/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year:) M/S Disha Education Society, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Disha Crown, Katchana Road. Exemption, Bhopal Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pan No. :Aaatd5249C : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023

For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12A

…ified. 8. Registration cancelled by Id. Pr. CIT relying solely on the statement recorded u/s 133A. There is absolutely no corroborative material on record. Statement recorded us 133A does not have evidentiary value. Reliance on CIT vs S Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). 9. Material has been utilized by ld Pr CIT without providing it to the assessee and without confronting it to the assessee. Such material is liable to be ignored. Reliance on:- - i) Kishinchand Chellaram vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) ii) HR. Mehta vs ACIT in Income Tax Appeal no. 58 of 2001 order dt. 30.06.2016 of Mumbai High Court iii) C…

Disha Education Society, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result ground of the appeal in the instant appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/RPR/2019[0]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.32&60/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year:) M/S Disha Education Society, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Disha Crown, Katchana Road. Exemption, Bhopal Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pan No. :Aaatd5249C : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023

For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12A

…ified. 8. Registration cancelled by Id. Pr. CIT relying solely on the statement recorded u/s 133A. There is absolutely no corroborative material on record. Statement recorded us 133A does not have evidentiary value. Reliance on CIT vs S Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). 9. Material has been utilized by ld Pr CIT without providing it to the assessee and without confronting it to the assessee. Such material is liable to be ignored. Reliance on:- - i) Kishinchand Chellaram vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) ii) HR. Mehta vs ACIT in Income Tax Appeal no. 58 of 2001 order dt. 30.06.2016 of Mumbai High Court iii) C…

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…hat statement recorded during survey has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be basis of addition. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported 352 ITR 480. Further, on perusal of the statement of Mr. Raman Kumar Jain, Ld. AR submitted that he has only given his opinion on issue related to professional fees, therefore it cannot be considered as conclusive. Moreover, it is to be noted that no evidence has been found during survey that cash has been received back from the said payment being made to Su…

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Nanitha Constructions, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 504/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Dy. C. I. T Vs. Nanitha Constructions Central Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aagfn1630D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Contract Works. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2019-20 On 20.09.2019 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,41,98,240/-. In This Case, A Survey Operation U/S 133A Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted On 22.3.2019 During The Course Of Which The Assessee Had Admitted Additional Income Of Rs.6.00 Crores Voluntarily To Cover Up The Discrepancies In The Books Of Account. However, In The Return Of Income The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders" 20. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (S.C) has upheld the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 214 CTR 589 holding section 133A does not empower any IT Authority to examine any person on oath and thus, any such statement has no evidentiary value. Therefore, any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition. 21. We find the H…

Sri Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…t. 10. PCIT Vs. M/s. Radha Krishna Vihar – order dt.13.02.2017 of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 11. Padan Chand Pungliya Vs. ACIT – 181 ITD 261 of ITAT Jaipur Bench. 12. CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggarwal – 241 Taxman 199 of Supreme Court. 13. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son – 352 ITR 480 of Supreme Court. 14. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son – 300 ITR 157 of Madras High Court. 15. CIT Vs. Ramdas Motor Transport – 238 ITR 177 of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 16. PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd – 397 ITR 82 of Delhi High Court. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 9. We have heard…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Manglam Build Developers Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/JPR/2022[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 14A

…in the development of this project in cash and therefore,set off of the amount received under this scheme can’t be allowed against the purchase of land at village Sarangpura. Firstly it may be noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Son 352 ITR 480 has held that section 133A does not empower any income tax authority to examine any person on oath and thus any such statement has no evidentiary value. Hence, statement recorded in survey can’t be basis for making addition. 15 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS MANGLAM BUILD DEVELOPERS LTD. Secondly, the statement is required to be considered i…

DCIT, CC, Gzbd vs. Anjali Mittal, Gzbd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 54FSection 54F(1)(b)Section 69A

…Ld. AR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He pointed out that during survey the assessee was not present. She was hospitalized and the surrender was made by her son. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC), the Ld. AR submitted that the statement recorded during survey cannot be taken as evidence. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The case of the assessee during assessment and appellate proceedings was that no difference was found in the quantity of stock. The difference of stock mentioned by the L…

Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

…t the statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings cannot be Used as evidence since section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath. In this connection we also rely in the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition". 4.4 Without prejudice to above, it is further to submit before your honor…