I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son

79 DTR 184Supreme Court of India2012#9139 most cited

What is I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son authority for?

A statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot, by itself, be the basis for an addition to income, as Section 133A does not empower authorities to examine persons on oath. Corroborative evidence is required for such additions.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son · Section 133A · Survey · Statement on Oath · Admissibility of Evidence · Corroborative Evidence · Addition to Income · Income Tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 133A of the Income Tax ActSection 139(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 143(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 145(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 1872Section 1963Section 250 of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son

Aapna Marble, G T Road Bhucho Kalan vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II Bathinda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 639/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s Aapna Marble Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income G.T. Road, Bhuchu Kalan, Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda Bathinda 151101, Punjab [PAN: AASFA 8773A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A. : Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sss Loha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 109/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 133A

…ecorded during survey under s. 133A—Sec. 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath and, therefore, any admission made in a statement recorded during survey cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition—CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 79 DTR 184 (SC) Therefore, even if, it is assumed though denied that assessee surrendered the income in his statement recorded in the survey, yet it cannot be added based upon such statement alone in view of the above judicial decisions, more so when there was no corroborative evidence. Therefore, prayer of the appellant is that addition made by Ld. AO on th…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Legend Developers & Constructions, Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 752/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…he Supreme Court Judgment and other High Courts 5. The appellant has filed various case laws in support of its submissions. [The case laws are filed in paper book and placed on record]. I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 / [2012] 210 Taxman 248/ 79 DTR 184/254 CTR 228 (SC) By Asmeet Shah on 19.01.2015 II. Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.7.2007 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.O.OINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA T.C.(A).No.867 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax Salem 1.…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Agnur Jayaramudu (HUF), Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 750/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…he Supreme Court Judgment and other High Courts 5. The appellant has filed various case laws in support of its submissions. [The case laws are filed in paper book and placed on record]. I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 / [2012] 210 Taxman 248/ 79 DTR 184/254 CTR 228 (SC) By Asmeet Shah on 19.01.2015 II. Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.7.2007 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.O.OINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA T.C.(A).No.867 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax Salem 1.…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Agnur Jayaramudu (Ind), Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 749/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…he Supreme Court Judgment and other High Courts 5. The appellant has filed various case laws in support of its submissions. [The case laws are filed in paper book and placed on record]. I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 / [2012] 210 Taxman 248/ 79 DTR 184/254 CTR 228 (SC) By Asmeet Shah on 19.01.2015 II. Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.7.2007 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.O.OINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA T.C.(A).No.867 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax Salem 1.…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Agnur Nirmala, Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 748/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…he Supreme Court Judgment and other High Courts 5. The appellant has filed various case laws in support of its submissions. [The case laws are filed in paper book and placed on record]. I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 / [2012] 210 Taxman 248/ 79 DTR 184/254 CTR 228 (SC) By Asmeet Shah on 19.01.2015 II. Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.7.2007 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.O.OINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA T.C.(A).No.867 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax Salem 1.…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Agnur Janakiram, Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 747/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…he Supreme Court Judgment and other High Courts 5. The appellant has filed various case laws in support of its submissions. [The case laws are filed in paper book and placed on record]. I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 / [2012] 210 Taxman 248/ 79 DTR 184/254 CTR 228 (SC) By Asmeet Shah on 19.01.2015 II. Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.7.2007 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.O.OINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA T.C.(A).No.867 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax Salem 1.…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Kurnool vs. Legend Developers & Constructions, Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 743/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…he Supreme Court Judgment and other High Courts 5. The appellant has filed various case laws in support of its submissions. [The case laws are filed in paper book and placed on record]. I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 / [2012] 210 Taxman 248/ 79 DTR 184/254 CTR 228 (SC) By Asmeet Shah on 19.01.2015 II. Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son on 4 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.7.2007 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.O.OINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA T.C.(A).No.867 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax Salem 1.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1809/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…e to the extent of Rs. 54,45,000/-. The statement of Sh. Vinod Parashar on oath was recorded during survey u/s 133A, which is not admissible against the assessee. The assessee relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khadar Khan Son 79 DTR 184 (SC) and decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons 263 ITR 101 (Kerala HC). It was further submitted that the statement of Sh. Vinod Parashar was not subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the assessee; therefore, it cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. The assessee relied upon the 7 ITA No.-1807/Del/2…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1808/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…e to the extent of Rs. 54,45,000/-. The statement of Sh. Vinod Parashar on oath was recorded during survey u/s 133A, which is not admissible against the assessee. The assessee relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khadar Khan Son 79 DTR 184 (SC) and decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons 263 ITR 101 (Kerala HC). It was further submitted that the statement of Sh. Vinod Parashar was not subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the assessee; therefore, it cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. The assessee relied upon the 7 ITA No.-1807/Del/2…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1807/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…e to the extent of Rs. 54,45,000/-. The statement of Sh. Vinod Parashar on oath was recorded during survey u/s 133A, which is not admissible against the assessee. The assessee relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khadar Khan Son 79 DTR 184 (SC) and decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons 263 ITR 101 (Kerala HC). It was further submitted that the statement of Sh. Vinod Parashar was not subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the assessee; therefore, it cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. The assessee relied upon the 7 ITA No.-1807/Del/2…

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…

I. CIT v. S. Khadar Khan Son (79 DTR 184) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax