Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

263 ITR 101High Court2003#308 most cited

What is Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

266

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Paul Mathews & Sons · CIT · Section 133A · survey statement · evidentiary value · statement on oath · admission · Income-tax Officer power · Section 133A(3)(iii) · no oath power

Also reported as

129 Taxmann 41633 Taxmann.com 130

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 143(2)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)section 158bbsurvey under section 133aretracted statementstatement under section 132(4)disallowance of interest expendituresection 133aloose paperssection 132(4)section 132(4a)section 133section 292c

Judgments citing Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

Devang Bhupendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kapadia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Devang Bhupendra Shah, v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADPS1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Rahul Kapadia,AR Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश…

Ram Baburao Salve, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3)(!), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5370/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agarwal & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ram Baburao Salve Vs. ITO Wd 17(3)(1), 17/18, Vyapar Bhuvan P. Mumbai. D’Mello Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400009. PAN/GIR No. AACPS5498L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dharan Gandhi – Advocate Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad - CIT DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order d…

Jayaram Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…53 Taxmann.com 306) . ITA No.705 - 711/Bang/2025 Page 14 of 36 • Ramachandra Setty & Sons v. ITO (163 Taxmann 666) • Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (84 Taxmann.com 287) • CIT v. Rakesh Ramani (256 Taxman 299) • P. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130) • Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349) 11.12 Thus, the ld. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case there was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation to the assessment years under consideration was found during the assessment proceedings. The only basis of addition was a coerced statement, which had no evi…

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 706/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…xman 199) Naresh Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (Andhra Pradesh HC, 53 Taxmann.com 306) Ramachandra Setty & Sons v. ITO (163 Taxmann 666) Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (84 Taxmann.com 287) CIT v. Rakesh Ramani (256 Taxman 299) P. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130) Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349) 11.12 Thus, the Id. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case there was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation to the assessment years under consideration was found during the assessment proceedings. The only basis of addition was a coerced statement, which had no eviden…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…Orders of the authorities below are accordingly set aside and addition of Rs.14,00,000/- is deleted. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.” 33. It is further humbly submitted that It was held in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT reported in 263 ITR 101 (Ker) apex court judgment reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 300 ITR 157 (Mad) that no addition is called for also in view of CBDT Instruction. Section 133A of the Act empower any authority to examine any person on oath, and such statement has an evidentiary value and any admission made during the search such sta…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…Orders of the authorities below are accordingly set aside and addition of Rs.14,00,000/- is deleted. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.” 33. It is further humbly submitted that It was held in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT reported in 263 ITR 101 (Ker) apex court judgment reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 300 ITR 157 (Mad) that no addition is called for also in view of CBDT Instruction. Section 133A of the Act empower any authority to examine any person on oath, and such statement has an evidentiary value and any admission made during the search such sta…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…han Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), which has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 254 CTR 228(SC) by dismissing the SLP of the revenue. Reliance also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), wherein, it is held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any person, which may be useful for, or relevant to any proceeding under the Act. This section only enables the authority to record any statement of any person, which may be useful, but does not authorise for taking any sworn statement. On the other ha…

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…han Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), which has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 254 CTR 228(SC) by dismissing the SLP of the revenue. Reliance also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), wherein, it is held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any person, which may be useful for, or relevant to any proceeding under the Act. This section only enables the authority to record any statement of any person, which may be useful, but does not authorise for taking any sworn statement. On the other ha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘’सी’’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [PAN: AAGCR3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) CO No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाा…

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

…examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement recorded under section 133A of the Act is not given an evidentiary value, vide a decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. The scope of sections 132(4) and 133A also came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. In the said case, the assessee therein made ITA Nos.568 and 569/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 15 an attempt to draw a distinction between the two provisions, viz., sections 132(4) and 133A. According to th…

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

…examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement recorded under section 133A of the Act is not given an evidentiary value, vide a decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. The scope of sections 132(4) and 133A also came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. In the said case, the assessee therein made ITA Nos.568 and 569/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 15 an attempt to draw a distinction between the two provisions, viz., sections 132(4) and 133A. According to th…

Shailesh Goyal, Tonk vs. ACIT, Centre Circle Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 496/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement recorded under section 133A of the Act is not given an evidentiary value, vide a decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. The scope of sections 132(4) and 133A also came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. In the said case, the assessee therein made an attempt to draw a distinction between the two provisions, viz., sections 132(4) and 133A. According to the assessee, there is no provision to adminis…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…as been analytically examined by Hon'ble Chennai High Court in the case of CIT Vs S.Khadar Khan Son reported in 300 ITR 157 (Madras). The Hon'ble Court has made reference to the judgement of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT 263 ITR 101. The questions formulated by the Chennai High Court for consideration, which are being reproduced as under : “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the statement made during a survey under section 133A of the income-tax Act has no evidentiary value ? ii) Whether, on…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…CIT Vs S.Khadar Khan Son ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 29 reported in 300 ITR 157 (Madras). The Hon'ble Court has made reference to the judgement of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT 263 ITR 101. The questions formulated by the Chennai High Court for consideration, which are being reproduced as under : “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the statement made during a survey under section 133A of the income-tax Act has no evidentiary value ? ii) Whether, o…

Manoj Kumar Khubani, Barmer vs. Dc Cen Cir 2 Jdh, Jodhpur

In the result, stands ALLOWED

ITA 376/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…law to make assessment of tax solely on the basis of the statement made on oath by an assessee, before the income tax authority during the survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act. 1.6 The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 has held that the statement recorded u/s. 133A has no evidentiary value. Further, Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works – (2010) 328 ITR 324 has held that survey officer are not authorized to administer an oath and to record a sworn statement u/s 133A which is in sharp contrast with section 132(4) which specifically authorizes an office…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. M/S. S.S. Infra, Vadodara

In the result, for the detailed reasons recorded above while adjudicating each of the grounds, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in these appeals for the assessment years 2015–16 to 2018–19 sta...

ITA 158/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.78, 79 & 80/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-16 & Asstt.Year 2018-19 Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 M/S.S.S. Infra Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.579 Shree Hari Duplex, Mouje Bil Vadodaa 391 410. Pan : Acnfs 6514 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…alue. This principle, as noted by the CIT(A) in his order, has been emphatically laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader Khan Son [(2012) 352 ITR 480 (SC)], and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons [(2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker)], holding that such uncorroborated oral statements cannot constitute the foundation for making additions under the Income Tax Act. While quantifying the addition, the CIT(A) proceeded to quantify the real income assessable under section 69A in a judicious and legally sound manner. As observed in para 7.1 of the order, the learned CIT(A) not…

Bhoop Singh Poonia, Nohar vs. ITO Ward, Nohar

ITA 405/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.S.Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)

…een analytically examined by the Hon'ble Chennai High Court in the case of CIT Vs S.Khadar Khan Son reported in 300 ITR 157 (Madras). The Hon'ble Court has made reference to the judgement of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT 263 ITR 101. The questions formulated by the Chennai High Court for consideration, which are being reproduced as under: ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in not considering the fact that the branch contractors' agent account book in which entries were made subsequent to the survey and not found d…

T K Prasad, Thrissur vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

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

ITA 673/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 153CSection 69

…v.) dated 10.03.2003. it is a well-established fact that in the absence of any evidence. no addition is required to be made for any adhoc declaration made by the assessee. The same has been upheld by the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101.1t was observed that: “Section 133A permits recording of statement, but does not authorize the person, taking the statement, to administer oath before recording the statement, which power is conferred u/s 132(4) of the Act only. Thus, in contra-distinction to Section 133A, Section 132(4) enables the authorized officer to examine a person on oath…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Rakesh Goel, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1204/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ome-tax Act is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorised to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law, vide Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); (iii) The expression “such other materials or Information as are available with the Assessing Officer” contained in section 158BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would include the materials gathered during the survey operation under section 133A, vide CIT v. G. K. Senniappan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad.) ; (iv) The material or information found…

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 623/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…rvey under section 133A are not conclusive by itself. The above cited judgment of the Hon'ble madras High Court was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). (copy of order attached P.B. NO…..) (ii) Paul Mathews 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Whatever statement recorded u/s 133A is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn is statement which alone has the evidentiary value as contemplated under law. Therefore, there is much force in the argument that the statement elicited during the surve…