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 366,369 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

Mr. Krishnakumar Narayanswamy Yelahanka, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 582/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm Mr.Krishnakumar Income Tax Officer, Narayanaswamy Yelahanka, Ward-6(3)(3), #959, Vinayaka Nilaya, Bengaluru Vs. Vollalinagara Street, Yelahanka, Bengaluru Pan – Aabpy4989M Appellant Respondent : Shri V.Srinivasan, Adv. Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 07-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-04-2022

For Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasan, Adv
Section 133ASection 148Section 234

…le deed was dt.02-04-2011. Even otherwise, the statement recorded during the course of survey proceedings u/s.133A of the Act cannot be the basis for any addition in the assessment as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan Son [352 ITR 480] (SC). Further he submitted that the assessee while filing the return of income on 03-05-2016 offered the income what is more than required even as per the survey material and it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any income in this assessment year on this count. Further, he submitted that even as per statement recorded u/s.133A of th…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…nd Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs.…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…nd Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs.…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…nd Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs.…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…nd Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs.…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…nt recorded during the survey does not have any evidence more so when the statement was retracted by the Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) deponent. To support his submission, ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC)  CIT vs Golden Finance (2013) 40 Taxman.com 329 (Guj.)  M/s Sashi Wines vs ITO (ITA No. 882/AHD/2017)  CIT vs Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF) (2013) 84 DTR 365 (MP)  CIT vs Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del)  CIT vs P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad)  ITO vs Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 231 CTR 165 (Chattisgarh)  CIT vs S. Kh…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…nt recorded during the survey does not have any evidence more so when the statement was retracted by the Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) deponent. To support his submission, ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC)  CIT vs Golden Finance (2013) 40 Taxman.com 329 (Guj.)  M/s Sashi Wines vs ITO (ITA No. 882/AHD/2017)  CIT vs Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF) (2013) 84 DTR 365 (MP)  CIT vs Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del)  CIT vs P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad)  ITO vs Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 231 CTR 165 (Chattisgarh)  CIT vs S. Kh…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Raj Enterprises, Surat

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…nt recorded during the survey does not have any evidence more so when the statement was retracted by the Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) deponent. To support his submission, ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC)  CIT vs Golden Finance (2013) 40 Taxman.com 329 (Guj.)  M/s Sashi Wines vs ITO (ITA No. 882/AHD/2017)  CIT vs Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF) (2013) 84 DTR 365 (MP)  CIT vs Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del)  CIT vs P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad)  ITO vs Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 231 CTR 165 (Chattisgarh)  CIT vs S. Kh…

Smt. Sharmila Vikram Mahurkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 399/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, SrFor Respondent: ITA Nos. 2133/Ahd/2014 & 399/Ahd/15 (M/s. Checkmate

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2133/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Checkmate Services Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Vs. 1, Sajani Apartment, Dalal Circle – 1(1), Baroda Road, Golwad, Fatehgunj, Baroda - 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACC8465A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 399/Ahd/2015 ("न…

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2133/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, SrFor Respondent: ITA Nos. 2133/Ahd/2014 & 399/Ahd/15 (M/s. Checkmate

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2133/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Checkmate Services Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Vs. 1, Sajani Apartment, Dalal Circle – 1(1), Baroda Road, Golwad, Fatehgunj, Baroda - 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACC8465A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 399/Ahd/2015 ("न…

Shri Bharat Mahesh Malhotra, Mumabi vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1483/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 133A(1)(b)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 1483/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3) Bharat Mahesh Malhotra A-103/104, Ankur Enclave, Thane400 604 Opp.Gaurav Galaxy Phase 1, Vijay Park, Near Amber Plaza Hall, Mira Road, Thane-401 107 PAN : AKBPM4928G (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee by Department by Shri C.T.Mathews, Sr.AR Date of Hearing 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-1 dated 1…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Mutyala Jewellers, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 75/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

…missions C.O.No.38/VIZ/2021 (M/s. Mutyala Jewellers) before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) by considering the written submissions filed by the assessee and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son [(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)] partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:- “6.1 .......... In this case, it was categorically held that a statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as the basis for addition. Therefore, I shall proceed to examine the sustainability of various additions made by the AO de…

M/S Md. Ismail Saree Creations, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131(3)Section 133ASection 143(1)

…as per the provisions of Act. Therefore the addition made on the basis of estimation and surmises cannot be sustained . The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kader Khan Son reported in [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein it has been held that the statement of the assessee in survey has no evidentiary value until and unless there is a corroborating material brought on record by the Investigation team and thus statement during the survey cannot be basis of making the decision. In above conspectus of facts and the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Cour…

Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1345/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80I

…acdonald and did not consider evidences such as photograph of the plant and machinery submitted before the ld. A.O. in pursuant to the ITAT direction. 10.We draw support from the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that only on the basis of statement recorded during the survey proceeding u/s. 133A cannot be basis of addition. There has to be corroborative evidence in support of the contention of the ld. A.O.. In our considered opinion, assessee has complied with all the direction given by the ITAT and submitted al…

Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Crcle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80I

…acdonald and did not consider evidences such as photograph of the plant and machinery submitted before the ld. A.O. in pursuant to the ITAT direction. 10.We draw support from the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that only on the basis of statement recorded during the survey proceeding u/s. 133A cannot be basis of addition. There has to be corroborative evidence in support of the contention of the ld. A.O.. In our considered opinion, assessee has complied with all the direction given by the ITAT and submitted al…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Sambhav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1818/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1818/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.4(1)(1) Vs. Sambhav Infrastructure P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. B-12, Amar Aprtment Vasna Barrage Road Vasna, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcs 5194 C

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman,CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…Corporation, ITA No.4940/1996 , ITAT, Ahmedabad bench v) CIT Vs. President Industreies, 258 ITR 664 (Guj) vi) CIT Vs. Balchand A Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) vii) ITO Vs. Sai Krupa Construction (2007) 13 SOT 459 (Mum) viii) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) ix) Pau Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 157 (Mad) x) Ashok Manilal Thakkar Vs. ACIT, (2005) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) xi) CIT Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 177 (AP) xii) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. CIT, 328 ITR 411 (Guj); xiii) Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT, (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del) xiv) ITO Vs. Vijaykumar Kesar (2010) 327 ITR 497…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt R Meena, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 722/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1St Main Road, The Income-Tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Agrpm0228K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 40 Lakhs Made On The Basis Of Statement Recorded Of Husband Of Assessee Who Offered An Additional Income On Account Of Inflated Expenses Found During The Course Of Survey Proceedings. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Made On Account Of Payment Reduced In Cash Book At Rs.3,41,918/-, Cash Expenses Of Rs. 3 Lakhs Without Calling For Report From The Ao & Accepting The Additional Evidence & Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In Contravention Of The Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1st Main Road, The Income-tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. PAN: AGRPM0228K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Revenue by : Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 03-01-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by revenue against order dated 28.02…

Dy CIT CC 7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Global Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

ITA 7440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

…examine any person on oath, hence any such statement lacks evidentiary value and any admission made during the survey cannot by itself be made the basis of addition unless some backed by some substantive materials as held in the case of CIT vs Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 (SC). 115. As regards to the statement dated 13.12.2016 the ld AR submitted that vide said statement, Mr. Ajay Shingal has confirmed that out of total sales to M/s Harmony Exim Pvt. 79 | P a g e ITA No. 7482/Mum/2019 & ors M/s M Concepts Retail LLP; AY 15-16 & ors Ltd., Sales of Rs.145,44,11,852/- were genuine sale and sale of Rs.9,14,75,919/-…

Radha Govind Buildestate P. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 474/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…any corroborating evidence has no evidentiary value. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan & Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 wherein it was held that “Section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath. In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132 (4) enables the authorized officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income tax Act. On the…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Radaha Govind Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…any corroborating evidence has no evidentiary value. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan & Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 wherein it was held that “Section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath. In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132 (4) enables the authorized officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income tax Act. On the…