Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT, Circle

339 ITR 192High Court2011#2035 most cited

What is Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT, Circle authority for?

Additions made by the Assessing Officer solely on the basis of a retracted statement under section 132(4) cannot be sustained without corroborating evidence, such as the recovery of assets, at the time of the search.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT · section 132(4) · retracted statement · corroboration · search and seizure · addition based on confession · independent evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69CSection 132(4A)Section 153DSection 142A

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)retracted statementsection 100bogus share capitalsection 153(c)(1)statement under section 132(4)section 131(1)section 269tsection 94section 114abatement of assessmentsection 158bc

Judgments citing Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT, Circle

M/S Singla Builders and Promoters Limited, Rupnagar, Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…f decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (92 SCL 157 SC); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan & Bros. (339 ITR 192). In the decision of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (157 Taxmann.com 207), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that retraction which is filed within a reasonable time must take precedence over original statement. In the present case, the retraction was within a span of 8 days mentioning the reasons for retraction of statement as duly supported by the sw…

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…f decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (92 SCL 157 SC); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan & Bros. (339 ITR 192). In the decision of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (157 Taxmann.com 207), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that retraction which is filed within a reasonable time must take precedence over original statement. In the present case, the retraction was within a span of 8 days mentioning the reasons for retraction of statement as duly supported by the sw…

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…f decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (92 SCL 157 SC); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan & Bros. (339 ITR 192). In the decision of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (157 Taxmann.com 207), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that retraction which is filed within a reasonable time must take precedence over original statement. In the present case, the retraction was within a span of 8 days mentioning the reasons for retraction of statement as duly supported by the sw…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

ITA 410/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and at…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 409/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and a…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 408/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and at…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 407/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…rch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros. 339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and at…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 406/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and at…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 405/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and a…

Bysani Adinarayagupatha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 404/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and at…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 402/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…rch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros. 339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and at…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 401/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and at…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 400/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and a…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 399/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…arch. It is well settled that an admission, unless supported by independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis of an addition. Reliance was placed on judicial pronouncement like S. Kahder Khan (Madras High Court 300 ITR 157), M. Narayanan & Bros.339 ITR 192 (Madras), and Pramukh Builders (Third Member decision of ITAT Ahmedabad, 112 ITD 179), which held that a retracted statement without corroboration has no evidentiary value. 5.4 The learned AR further pointed out that the AO himself adopted inconsistent stands—sometimes stating that alleged bogus purchases resulted in jewellery investments, and a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru vs. Kudlur Ramaswamy Sathyanarayana, Mysuru

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1130/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey**

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given proper opportunity to show the correct state of affairs. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Madras High Court in *M. Narayan & Bros.* v. *Asstt. CIT* [2011] 13 taxmann.com 49/201 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/339 ITR 192 wherein retraction made during the course of assessment proceedings was entertained and relief was granted on merits of the explanation. It is argued that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of statements which are subsequently retracted even belatedly as held by Delhi High Court in *CIT* v. *Sunil Aggarwal* [2015] 64 taxmann.com 107/[20…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…s an extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the person who has made the admission to show that it is incorrect. ii) ITA 1426/2018 (Del) dated 20.2.2024 PCIT vs. Vir Sen Sindhu (pages 452-458 of JPB-II) iii) 339 ITR 192 (Chennai) M. Narayanan and Bros vs. ACIT 12. In the decision reported in (2006) 287 ITR 209 (P R Metrani V. Commissioner of Income-Tax), dealing with the scope of Section 132(4A), the Supreme Court considered the conclusive character of the statement made in a search operation. The Apex Court held that Section 132 is a complete code by itself. Un…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…s an extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the person who has made the admission to show that it is incorrect. ii) ITA 1426/2018 (Del) dated 20.2.2024 PCIT vs. Vir Sen Sindhu (pages 452-458 of JPB-II) iii) 339 ITR 192 (Chennai) M. Narayanan and Bros vs. ACIT 12. In the decision reported in (2006) 287 ITR 209 (P R Metrani V. Commissioner of Income-Tax), dealing with the scope of Section 132(4A), the Supreme Court considered the conclusive character of the statement made in a search operation. The Apex Court held that Section 132 is a complete code by itself. Un…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…s an extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the person who has made the admission to show that it is incorrect. ii) ITA 1426/2018 (Del) dated 20.2.2024 PCIT vs. Vir Sen Sindhu (pages 452-458 of JPB-II) iii) 339 ITR 192 (Chennai) M. Narayanan and Bros vs. ACIT 12. In the decision reported in (2006) 287 ITR 209 (P R Metrani V. Commissioner of Income-Tax), dealing with the scope of Section 132(4A), the Supreme Court considered the conclusive character of the statement made in a search operation. The Apex Court held that Section 132 is a complete code by itself. Un…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…s an extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the person who has made the admission to show that it is incorrect. ii) ITA 1426/2018 (Del) dated 20.2.2024 PCIT vs. Vir Sen Sindhu (pages 452-458 of JPB-II) iii) 339 ITR 192 (Chennai) M. Narayanan and Bros vs. ACIT 12. In the decision reported in (2006) 287 ITR 209 (P R Metrani V. Commissioner of Income-Tax), dealing with the scope of Section 132(4A), the Supreme Court considered the conclusive character of the statement made in a search operation. The Apex Court held that Section 132 is a complete code by itself. Un…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S New Delta Gear Manufacturers Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 829/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.829/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. New Delta Gear Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3), 2, Palayakaran Street, Ekkattuthangal, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 097. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-3576-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T. N. Seetharaman (Advocate) -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 01-12-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. N. Seetharaman (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…hamed Sait (37 ITR 151) to support the submission that additions could not have been made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’bles High Court of Madras in the case of M. Narayanan & Bros. (339 ITR 192) which held that statement could not be the sole material to frame the assessment. In this decision, it was held that while statement rendered by assessee at time of search u/s 132(4) may be used in evidence in any proceeding, yet that, by itself, does not become sole material to rest assessment, more so when assessee seeks to withdraw same by pr…