Hotel Kiran v. ACIT

82 ITD 453Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#2097 most cited

What is Hotel Kiran v. ACIT authority for?

A statement made voluntarily under Section 132(4) by an assessee is considered good evidence, but it is not conclusive and can be retracted under certain circumstances, such as if the statement was obtained involuntarily.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hotel Kiran v ACIT · 82 ITD 453 · Section 132(4) · retracted statement · voluntary statement · admission · coercion · undue influence · burden of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 153BSection 153CSection 292CSection 65BSection 68Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 181section 193section 65b(4)section 63section 271aaasection 114statement under section 132(4)section 147ofjewellery found during searchsection 158bcretracted statementsection 65b

Judgments citing Hotel Kiran v. ACIT

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6761/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

DCIT, CC 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6759/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6757/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…nd the same can be used against the person who makes it. The reason behind this was that a person making a statement stopped the opposite party from making further investigation. This view had been held by Hon‟ble ITAT Pune in the case of Hotel Kiran Vs. ACIT(82 ITD 453). The Hon‟ble ITAT Pune dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee had dealt in penny stocks which were manipulated and the assessee had surrendered the income during assessment proceedings after the modus operandi was confronted to the assessee. 5.2 Reliance is also placed on the recent decision of Hon'ble Madras ITAT, Bench…

M/S. Simtools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7(3) ( Earstwhile DCIT- Cent. Cir-42), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 1574/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 32(1)Section 79

…inandhan Lodha. He referred to following case laws i) Surjeet Singh chhabra v. Union of India (SC) ii) TS Kumarasami v. ACIT , 65 ITD 188 (Mad.) iii) MK Mohammad Kunhi v. CIT 92 ITR 341 (ker.) iv) V Kunhikannan v CIT 219 ITR 235 (Ker.) v) Hotel Kiran v ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune.Trib) vi) Dr.SC Gupta v. CIT, 248 ITR 782(Alld) 13. He concluded as under:- “Respectfully following the above judicial authorities on the subject, I hold as under:- (i) Statements in the nature of declarations covered by the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, are binding on the declarant. They can neither be retracted nor do th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 577/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…e facts earlier stated and want to substitute the same with new A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 facts, same should be backed by supporting evidences. He placed reliance on the cases of Bhagirath Aggrawal Vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi HC), Hotel Kiran Vs. ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune Trib.) and CIT Vs. M S Aggarwal, 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi HC). He submits that all statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act were recorded on the date of the search i.e. on 20.11.2010 and all these persons simultaneously filed letters on 21.11.2010 stating that they are not aware of the contents of their statements and they have apprehensions that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 576/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…e facts earlier stated and want to substitute the same with new A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 facts, same should be backed by supporting evidences. He placed reliance on the cases of Bhagirath Aggrawal Vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi HC), Hotel Kiran Vs. ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune Trib.) and CIT Vs. M S Aggarwal, 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi HC). He submits that all statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act were recorded on the date of the search i.e. on 20.11.2010 and all these persons simultaneously filed letters on 21.11.2010 stating that they are not aware of the contents of their statements and they have apprehensions that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 575/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…e facts earlier stated and want to substitute the same with new A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 facts, same should be backed by supporting evidences. He placed reliance on the cases of Bhagirath Aggrawal Vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi HC), Hotel Kiran Vs. ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune Trib.) and CIT Vs. M S Aggarwal, 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi HC). He submits that all statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act were recorded on the date of the search i.e. on 20.11.2010 and all these persons simultaneously filed letters on 21.11.2010 stating that they are not aware of the contents of their statements and they have apprehensions that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 574/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…e facts earlier stated and want to substitute the same with new A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 facts, same should be backed by supporting evidences. He placed reliance on the cases of Bhagirath Aggrawal Vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi HC), Hotel Kiran Vs. ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune Trib.) and CIT Vs. M S Aggarwal, 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi HC). He submits that all statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act were recorded on the date of the search i.e. on 20.11.2010 and all these persons simultaneously filed letters on 21.11.2010 stating that they are not aware of the contents of their statements and they have apprehensions that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 573/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…e facts earlier stated and want to substitute the same with new A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 facts, same should be backed by supporting evidences. He placed reliance on the cases of Bhagirath Aggrawal Vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi HC), Hotel Kiran Vs. ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune Trib.) and CIT Vs. M S Aggarwal, 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi HC). He submits that all statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act were recorded on the date of the search i.e. on 20.11.2010 and all these persons simultaneously filed letters on 21.11.2010 stating that they are not aware of the contents of their statements and they have apprehensions that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 572/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…e facts earlier stated and want to substitute the same with new A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 facts, same should be backed by supporting evidences. He placed reliance on the cases of Bhagirath Aggrawal Vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi HC), Hotel Kiran Vs. ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune Trib.) and CIT Vs. M S Aggarwal, 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi HC). He submits that all statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act were recorded on the date of the search i.e. on 20.11.2010 and all these persons simultaneously filed letters on 21.11.2010 stating that they are not aware of the contents of their statements and they have apprehensions that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 571/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…e facts earlier stated and want to substitute the same with new A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 facts, same should be backed by supporting evidences. He placed reliance on the cases of Bhagirath Aggrawal Vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi HC), Hotel Kiran Vs. ACIT, 82 ITD 453 (Pune Trib.) and CIT Vs. M S Aggarwal, 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi HC). He submits that all statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act were recorded on the date of the search i.e. on 20.11.2010 and all these persons simultaneously filed letters on 21.11.2010 stating that they are not aware of the contents of their statements and they have apprehensions that…

Sri Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. ITO, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 409/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…any, was required to be filed immediately after the survey operation. On the other hand, the assessee had neither reconciled the stock difference nor shown the same in the ITR filed on 30.03.2011 i.e. after a lapse of one year. f) In the case of Hotel Kiran (82 ITD 453) (Pune ITAT) and Hiralal Maganlal (96 ITD 113) (Mumbai ITAT), the Hon'ble Tribunals have held that where during the course of search, the assessee has made some admission, then he debars the authorized officers from making further investigation. Therefore, in their wisdom the Legislature has provided that such statement can be used as evidence and…

Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 188/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…any, was required to be filed immediately after the survey operation. On the other hand, the assessee had neither reconciled the stock difference nor shown the same in the ITR filed on 30.03.2011 i.e. after a lapse of one year. f) In the case of Hotel Kiran (82 ITD 453) (Pune ITAT) and Hiralal Maganlal (96 ITD 113) (Mumbai ITAT), the Hon'ble Tribunals have held that where during the course of search, the assessee has made some admission, then he debars the authorized officers from making further investigation. Therefore, in their wisdom the Legislature has provided that such statement can be used as evidence and…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 226/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…sessing officer made addition of 18% of such outstanding amount which is confirmed by the department. The circumstances in the case of the assessee are totally different and are distinguishable. (11) The decision in the case of Hotel Kiran Vs ACIT reported in 82 ITD 453 (Pune): In the said case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that admission is a good piece of evidence and is not conclusive. It is further observed as under: “However, there are exceptions to such admission where the assessee can retract from such admission. The first exception exists where such statement is made involuntarily, i.e., obtained under coerc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 225/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…sessing officer made addition of 18% of such outstanding amount which is confirmed by the department. The circumstances in the case of the assessee are totally different and are distinguishable. (11) The decision in the case of Hotel Kiran Vs ACIT reported in 82 ITD 453 (Pune): In the said case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that admission is a good piece of evidence and is not conclusive. It is further observed as under: “However, there are exceptions to such admission where the assessee can retract from such admission. The first exception exists where such statement is made involuntarily, i.e., obtained under coerc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 224/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…sessing officer made addition of 18% of such outstanding amount which is confirmed by the department. The circumstances in the case of the assessee are totally different and are distinguishable. (11) The decision in the case of Hotel Kiran Vs ACIT reported in 82 ITD 453 (Pune): In the said case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that admission is a good piece of evidence and is not conclusive. It is further observed as under: “However, there are exceptions to such admission where the assessee can retract from such admission. The first exception exists where such statement is made involuntarily, i.e., obtained under coerc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 223/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…sessing officer made addition of 18% of such outstanding amount which is confirmed by the department. The circumstances in the case of the assessee are totally different and are distinguishable. (11) The decision in the case of Hotel Kiran Vs ACIT reported in 82 ITD 453 (Pune): In the said case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that admission is a good piece of evidence and is not conclusive. It is further observed as under: “However, there are exceptions to such admission where the assessee can retract from such admission. The first exception exists where such statement is made involuntarily, i.e., obtained under coerc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 222/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…sessing officer made addition of 18% of such outstanding amount which is confirmed by the department. The circumstances in the case of the assessee are totally different and are distinguishable. (11) The decision in the case of Hotel Kiran Vs ACIT reported in 82 ITD 453 (Pune): In the said case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that admission is a good piece of evidence and is not conclusive. It is further observed as under: “However, there are exceptions to such admission where the assessee can retract from such admission. The first exception exists where such statement is made involuntarily, i.e., obtained under coerc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1385/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…sessing officer made addition of 18% of such outstanding amount which is confirmed by the department. The circumstances in the case of the assessee are totally different and are distinguishable. (11) The decision in the case of Hotel Kiran Vs ACIT reported in 82 ITD 453 (Pune): In the said case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that admission is a good piece of evidence and is not conclusive. It is further observed as under: “However, there are exceptions to such admission where the assessee can retract from such admission. The first exception exists where such statement is made involuntarily, i.e., obtained under coerc…