How many judgments cite Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT?

396 judgments on BharatTax cite Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (30 ITR 181), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 69A, Section 147.

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

30 ITR 181Supreme Court of India1956#185 most cited

What is Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT authority for?

If the Assessing Officer or appellate authority does not rebut the facts stated in an affidavit, those facts are binding on the tax authorities.

396

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT · 30 ITR 181 · affidavit not rebutted · binding on AO · facts in affidavit · tax authorities bound by affidavit · statement in affidavit

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 69A Section 147 Section 69 Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statement section 158bb section 131(1a)section 292c statement under section 132(4)section 132(4a)panchnama section 153c(1)loose papers section 132(4)dumb documents

Judgments citing Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…that total following cases: turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration exceeds Rs. 40.00 i) 27 ITR 602 (Pat0 Chunnilal Tikaamchand Coal Co. lakhs. Therefore, it can be concluded that Ltd. vs. CIT the additional evidence furnished by the ii) 30 ITR 181 (SC) Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT assessee under Rule 46A is devoid of merit, iii) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lalchand Bhagar Ambica Ram vs. suffers from factual inaccuracies and is not CIT fit to be evidence in true sense of the iv) 42 ITR 689 (all) Sri Ram Tandon vs. CIT word. 6. the outset, it is submitted that, the issue stands concluded by learned Assess…

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

…absence of cross- examination, the contains of affidavit wherein Shri Ritesh Gheewala Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) retracted should be accepted as corrected. It has been held so by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Gujarat High Court in the case of Glasslines Equipments Company Ltd. Vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj). 30. The Ld. A R for the assessee submits that copy of a statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala was provided just one day before the passing of the assessment order, the statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is not admissible as evidence as no cross-e…

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

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

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…nt was against the facts and circumstances of the case. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT-II vs. Amarjit Singh Bajwa (2013) 84 CCH 198 (P&H) • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Mehta Parikh & Co. vs CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) • ACIT vs. Roop Chand Tharani (2012) 66 DTR 104 (Chhattisgarh) • CIT vs. Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Del ) • CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 (Del ) • CIT vs. Om Overseas (2009) 315 ITR 185 (P&H ) • CIT vs. Ludhiana Steel Rolling Mills (2007) 295 ITR 111(P&H) • CIT Vs K.C. Malhotra 164 Taxman 101 (P&H) • Eland Internation…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…material. Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE — [(2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC)] (ii). State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff[(1977) 39 STC 478 SC)] (iii). Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)] (iv). Vasanji Ghela & Co, v. CST — [(1977) 40 STC 544 (Bom)] (v). CIT v. Ashish International [ITXA No. 4299 of 2009, Order Dated 22.02.201, Bombay High court] 3. The assessment order is framed purely on the basis of (i) suspicion, surmises and conjectures (ii) relying upon extraneous / irrelevant considerations (iii) ignoring the relevant m…

ITO Ward-4(1)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Valley Comtrade Pvt Ltd ( Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R with Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

Section 13(1)(d)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARATHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2034/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/s. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier known as Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli BMW Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. PAN: AADCS3553N And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 68/SRT/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/s. Valley Comtrade Pvt.…

DCIT, Central -2, Indore vs. M/S Great Galleon Ventures Ltd, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

ITA 68/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

…of Excel Sheet, Excel work note book etc., non- compliance of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. 25 If Deponents It will not be open - Mehta Parikh & Co. v. not examined, to the revenue to CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 their Affidavits challenge the (SC) cannot be statements made disbelieved. by the deponent in their affidavits later on, if no cross examination with reference to the statements made in the affidavits is done. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures ltd. IT(SS)A No.114, to 116 /Ind/2020 & ITANo.67 to 70/Ind/2021 26 Estimation of The estimation of - The averag…

DCIT, Central -2, Indore vs. M/S Great Galleon Ventures Ltd, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

ITA 67/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

Shri.B.H.Basha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1375/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Roumvan Paite, CIT(DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) quashed the assessment order on the reason of not providing cross- examination of witnesses whose statements were recorded. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, 30 ITR 181 held as under:- ITA No.1375 to 1378/Bang/2016 Page 20 of 44 “In the instant case a mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the ITO or the AAC was not enough, without any further scrutiny, to dislodge the position taken up by the assessee, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the assessee before…

Pannaben Nilesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5854/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tents of the said affidavits are to be accepted as true. Hence, no adverse inference could be drawn on the said affidavits. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co., vs. CIT reported in 30 ITR 181. We also hold that levy of penalty is not automatic merely because addition has been confirmed in the quantum proceedings. This is a clear case of explanation given by the assessee not being accepted by the ld. AO leading to different interpretation and not examining the affidavits filed on record to support the contentions of the assessee. Hence,…

Zaverchand Damji Haria, Prop of Zeal Apparell, Pa, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4455/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…tents of the said affidavits are to be accepted as true. Hence, no adverse inference could be drawn on the said affidavits. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co., vs. CIT reported in 30 ITR 181. 10.4. We also find that this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2011- 12 in ITA No.300/Mum/2017 dated 19/09/2018 had restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO and in the giving effect proceedings, the ld. AO vide order dated 01/04/2021 which is enclosed in page 143 of the paper book had granted complete relief to the assessee. In view of…

Poonam Haresh Budhrani, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54E

…law, then the contents of the said affidavit is to be construed as true and correct. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme 9 Ms. Poonam Haresh Budhrani Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs CIT reported in 30 ITR 181 (SC). 4.3. In view of the aforesaid observations, we have no hesitation in holding that assessee is entitled for claim of exemption u/s.54EC of the Act in respect of investment made by her in NHAI capital gain bonds within a period of six months from the date of transfer. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 5. In the res…

Shri Kuldip Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(4), Mohali

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1442/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1442/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kuldeep Singh Income Tax Officer, बनाम Vill. Gharuan, Tehsil Kharar, Ward 6(4), Mohali Distt. Mohali "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Dqeps 7365R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT

Section 250(6)

…h. Inderjit Parvinder Singh and Sh. Jagjit on the point of affidavit filed by them nor rebutted the content of the affidavit which remain uncontroverted, must inverbalkly be accepted as true and reliable as held in case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 186, 187 (S.C. and Kanshna Vs. CIT(All) 142 ITR 618. Kuldeep Singh v. ITO, Mohali 4 8. The assessee craves leave to add or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of appellate proceedings.” The solitary issue, as is evident from the grounds reproduced above, relates to additions made amounting to Rs. 91,29,248/- on account of cash deposits in bank…

Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Legal Heir of Lt.Jaskiran Singh Bajwa, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 69A

…had been debited. It was stated that the affidavit had been filed, the same should be accepted unless or until there was some contrary evidence, the reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh Vs. ITO reported in 30 ITR 181. 6.3 It was reiterated that the assessee requested to the A.O. vide a letter (copy of which is placed at page no. 34 of the assessee’s paper book) for issuing the summons to Shri Hardev Singh and Shri Maninder Singh Sahi for calling more information as the A.O. may desire and that complete addresses of the aforesaid persons were given but the A.O.…

Matrix India Entertainment Consultants Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC -8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals for 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 &

ITA 2938/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ncriminating material namely CIT-1 v Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia (2014) 222 Taxman 64(Guj.) (Trib.) (Mag), Uday C Tamhankar v DCIT (2015) 174 TTJ 151(Mum)(Trib.), Dr M.K.E Memon (2008) 248 ITR 310 (Bom)(HC). Besides in the case .In Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181(SC), it is held that an Affidavit is valid unless proven false. The Supreme Court in Comman Cause v UOI [2017] [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) (Pg. No. 140-148) was dealing with incriminating materials in form of random sheets and loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, M/s. Matrix India Entertainment Consultants Pvt. Ltd pen drives etc. which were foun…

Pawan Kumar Mehta vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

ITA/561/2015HC Karnataka19 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 260ASection 6

…her submitted that assessee does not intend to raise any contention with regard to validity of the proceeding under Section 132 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'MEHTA PARIKH & CO. VS. CIT', (1956) 30 ITR 181 8 (SC), 'LAKSHMI RICE MILLS VS. CIT', (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PATNA), 'CIT VS. MR P FIRM', (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) and 'PULLONGODE RUBBER VS. STATE OF KERALA', (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee despite being afforded an opportunity to offer the explanation was unable to…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1105/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 Smt.Kempanna Shylaja The Income Tax Officer No.617, Neeru Bhavikempanna Ward 6(3)(1) v. Layout, Guddadahalli Main Road Bengaluru. Hebbal Bengaluru – 560 024. PAN : DGVPS6700R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri L.Maheshkumar, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2021 Date of Hearing : 06.07.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is dir…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…not been rebutted by the AO/authority, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. 9 ITA 173/JP/2019 _ Kailash Chand Yadav Vs ITO He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Mehta Pareek & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ii. ITO v. Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp) iii. Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., iv. CIT v/s Lunard Dimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement gi…