Gajjam China Yellappa v. ITO

370 ITR 671High Court2015#4350 most cited

What is Gajjam China Yellappa v. ITO authority for?

A retracted statement made under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act cannot be the sole basis for an assessment order; the Assessing Officer must gather further supporting material.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gajjam China Yellappa v. ITO · 370 ITR 671 · section 132(4) · retracted statement · section 132 · assessment order · onus of proof · addition on retracted statement · sole basis for addition · evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69CSection 132Section 147Section 153DSection 114

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 164section 94abatement of assessmentanonymous donationsection 58section 153(c)retracted statementthird party informationonus of proof

Judgments citing Gajjam China Yellappa v. ITO

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” VC JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 753/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Saroj Parwal, Vs. Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur. Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADYPP 8357N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” VC JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 753/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Saroj Parwal, Vs. Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur. Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADYPP 8357N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4883/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…e stated in the assessment order which is linked to the disclosure. d. In the statement also there is no linkage of any material to the impugned disclosure. e. He relied up on the decision of Hon Delhi high court in 397 ITR 82 and Andhra Pradesh high court in 370 ITR 671 and 369 ITR 171 and 379 ITR 367. He also referred to the circular of CBDT with respect to statement of disclosure to be linked with evidence. 24. Ld CIT DR also vehemently referred to several decision of Honourable High courts and submitted that when once the disclosure is made the addition is required to be made. 25. We have carefully considered…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4882/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…e stated in the assessment order which is linked to the disclosure. d. In the statement also there is no linkage of any material to the impugned disclosure. e. He relied up on the decision of Hon Delhi high court in 397 ITR 82 and Andhra Pradesh high court in 370 ITR 671 and 369 ITR 171 and 379 ITR 367. He also referred to the circular of CBDT with respect to statement of disclosure to be linked with evidence. 24. Ld CIT DR also vehemently referred to several decision of Honourable High courts and submitted that when once the disclosure is made the addition is required to be made. 25. We have carefully considered…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4881/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…e stated in the assessment order which is linked to the disclosure. d. In the statement also there is no linkage of any material to the impugned disclosure. e. He relied up on the decision of Hon Delhi high court in 397 ITR 82 and Andhra Pradesh high court in 370 ITR 671 and 369 ITR 171 and 379 ITR 367. He also referred to the circular of CBDT with respect to statement of disclosure to be linked with evidence. 24. Ld CIT DR also vehemently referred to several decision of Honourable High courts and submitted that when once the disclosure is made the addition is required to be made. 25. We have carefully considered…

Sh. Didar Singh S/O Sh. Prem Singh, Kapurthala vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kapurthala

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 542/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Harminder Syal (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (Ld. DR)
Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 68

…fied that: It is an established principle of law that a party is entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him previously is in fact not correct and true. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gajjam Chinna Yellappa and Ors. vs. ITO [2015] 370 ITR 671 (AP) held that “a retracted statement cannot constitute the sole basis of fastened liability of the assessee" . 7.3 Further, Kerala High in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker) held that statement recorded 9 Sh. Didar Singh, Kapurthala vs. DCIT under Section 133A of the IT Act is not given any evidentiary value ob…

Avinash Kumar Setia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. UN Marwah, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ACIT (2008) 28 SOT 215 (Delhi High Court) - Mahesh Ohri vs. ACIT (2013) 23 ITR 522 154 - CIT vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 33 taxmann.com 130 (Madras High Court) - ITO vs. Surrender Kumar Jain ITA No. 3871/Del/2011 - Gajjam Chinna Yellappa vs. ITO (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP) (HC) - CIT vs. Uttam Chand Jain (2010) 320 ITR 554 - R. Arun vs. ITO, 2016 (3) TMI 321 ITAT, Chennai. 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the same may be upheld and the Appeal of the assessee may be dismissed accordingly. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records a…