How many judgments cite CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son?

581 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (352 ITR 480), spanning 2015 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 132(4), Section 132.

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 366,005 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 133A Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 147 Section 132(4)Section 132 Section 153A Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)survey under section 133a retracted statement section 158bb statement under section 132(4)section 133a section 133 section 292c block period section 132(4)loose papers section 131

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3516/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

…ontention of the ld.AR that the statement on oath given during the survey proceedings cannot be relied as a piece of evidence in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR(SC) 228 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) unless such statement is proved to be wrong with evidences. The ld. AR submitted that there was no materials found during the survey in corroboration of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, in our view to rely solely on the statement on oath would be unreasonable and unju…

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3514/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3513/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

Dr. B.G. Memorial Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 516/KOL/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmeddr. B.G. Memorial Trust V/S. Cit (Exemption), 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th 6/1 Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, Kolkat-29 Floor, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aaatd 5235 A]

Section 12ASection 133A

…itors Trust vs. CIT (Exemptions) in ITA No. 1165/Kol/2016 dated 03.05.2017. The statement taken under oath during the survey operation is not admissible in terms of the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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” In the instant case, Ld. CIT(Ex) has accepted the identity and creditwort…

Ballaram Hanumandas Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kol., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

ITA 431/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13

Section 12ASection 133Section 35(1)(ii)

…ssee failed to provide the opportunity of cross examination to the assessee which in our considered view is against the principle of natural justice. In this connection we also rely In this connection we rely in the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) 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” In the absence of the cross examination of the statement the impugne…

Radharaman Behari Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 29/KOL/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedradharaman Behari V/S. Commissioner Of Income Trust, 13, Roopchand Tax, (Exemptions), 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Roy Street,Kolkata-007 [Pan No.Aabts 5782 L] Floor, Kolkata-71 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 12ASection 131Section 133A

…ion is not binding on the person making the statement. Therefore such a statement cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee in support of his claim relied on the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of S Khader Khan & Sons reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC). Besides the above, the assessee requested to the Ld.CIT(Ex) for providing the opportunity of cross examination with the managing trustee of GRGCT Shri Anand Agarwal and as well as Shri Gaurav Agarwal who was acting as conduit in the transactions of bogus donations. 10. However the C.I.T.(Exemptions), Kolkata proceeded to pass an order u/s…

M/S. Mitra Parishad, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2434/KOL/2016[-------]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2017

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)(vi)

…Ranjan Dasgupta which, according to the assessee, cannot be the sole basis for cancelling the registration granted u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act. According to assessee society, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Kader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) the statement given on oath u/s. 133A 4 Mitra Parishad, AY -- of the Act cannot be the sole basis for the impugned action. Therefore, the assessee society requested the Ld. CIT(E) to grant opportunity to cross examine Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta and Shri Kishan Bhavsihinka. We note that the Ld. CIT(E) in order to cancel the registration ha…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

…the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 4.27. If the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements discus…

ACIT, Erode vs. M/S. S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy, Erode

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 3053/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.S.Mohameed Mustafa, JCITFor Respondent: Mr.N.C.Ravikrishnan,Advocate

Section 68

…Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2012-13 vide order dated 05.08.2016 in ITA No.1810/Mds./2016 and also in the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan Son which has been affirmed by the Apex court in in 352 ITR 480(Mad.), deleted the addition. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2012-13(supra) wherein the Tribunal after considering the en…

Green Valley Home Developers P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT (CC) 13, Mumbai

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

ITA 5066/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No.5065/Mum/2009 & 5066/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year :2006-07 & 2007-08) M/s. Green Valley Home Vs. ACIT-13, Mumbai Developers Pvt. Ltd., Glomax Mall, Shop No.43,44, Plot No.17,18,19, Station Road, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410 210 PAN/GIR No. AAACA4509R Appellant) .. Respondent) ITA No.5111/Mum/2009 & 5112/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year :2006-07 & 2007-08) ACIT-13, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Green Valley Home Developers Pvt. Ltd., Glomax Mall, Shop No.43,44, Plot No.17,18,19, Station Road, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410 210 PAN…

Sri. Saibabu, C.N. Halli vs. DCIT, Tumkur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1050/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao & Shri. Lalit Kumar, Judiciali.T.A No.1050/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri. Sai Babu, Prop : Sri Enterprises, Near Adi Anjaneya Temple, Jogihalli Road, C. N. Hally .. Appellant Pan : Ayfps5738N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Tumkur .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Smt. Swapna Das, Jcit Heard On : 01.05.2017 Pronounced On : 09.06.2017 O R D E R Per Lalit Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 133A

…nt evidence, except the sworn statement recorded on 04.02.2010. The Ld. AR has taken us to the order passed by the authorities below. He also drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)], in support of his argument that no addition can be made in the absence of any cogent evidence. Paragraph 66, of the above judgement, on which reliance was placed by the Ld. AR for the assessee, reads as under : A survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee-firm. One of the partners in his statement offered an additional income…

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)

…has heavily relied on the statement of the director recorded during survey as the basis of making the addition when the law is that the statement recorded during survey cannot be the basis of making addition as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kader Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC). Moreover, we note that the quantity of the 6 Ambika Sarees Pvt. Ltd. AY 2011-12 stock as per the books of account and as per physical inventory taken by the survey team fully tallied and the only difference was in respect of valuation, which was made on estimation and agreed to by the Director in his statement recorded during the survey. I…

Kamladevi S. Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1957/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood,Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1957/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Kamla Devi S. Doshi The Income Tax Officer Flat No. 410, Shreepati Castle, Ward 16(3)(1), बिधम/ 208/210, 10Thkhetwadi Main Road, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Vs. Mumbai 400004 Mumbai 400034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Affpd7183M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Vishwas Mundhe, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…e purchase transactions carried out by the assessee as bogus, therein leading to an addition of the sale consideration as income in the hands of the assessee, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). The ld. A.R. relying on the aforesaid judgments, therein submitted that treating the duly substantiated purchase of shares by the assessee as a bogus transaction on the basis of the unsubstantiated statement of Shri Mukesh Chokshi (supra), could not be sustained and was liable to set aside in the absence of any independent corroborative evi…

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)

…assessee. He submitted that the action of the authorities below relying upon the statement recorded during the course of survey is contrary to ratio laid in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and also the judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Kerala in the cases of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works and Paul Mathews and sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker). He submitted that the tax was deposited under protest. The Assessing Officer presumed payment of tax on the surrendered amount during the course of survey as if the as…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…dénces and 'facts brought to her notice, during the course, of assessment proceedings itself, therefore merely' on, the basis of such statement, such "corroborative" and "material evidences" cannot be ignored. In the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son -(2012) 25 Taxmann 413 (SC) it has been held that statement recorded u/s.133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. Similar is the proposition in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT (2003) 129 Taxmann 416(Kerala). 5.8 During the course of assessment proceedings itself assessee has filed follow…

Nihaar Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 13(1)(1)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3020/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment 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 "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri M. Subramanian S…

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)

…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 categorically stated that no confessional statement be recorded and the emphasis in c…

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

…during that period, however, if the retraction is made within short span 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 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 ap…