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 366,339 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

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…Tax Officer, ITA 5935/Mum/2002 dated 30.10.2006 2. Suresh Chand Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…Tax Officer, ITA 5935/Mum/2002 dated 30.10.2006 2. Suresh Chand Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…Tax Officer, ITA 5935/Mum/2002 dated 30.10.2006 2. Suresh Chand Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA 191/Agra/2013 dated 31/07/2017 I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 8 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 3. Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) 4. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 5. CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv…

M/S Atop Fasteners (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1616/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT
Section 133ASection 250(6)

…the confession of additional income during the course of search and seizure and survey operations. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253 : (1973) 91ITR 18 (SC), Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 181 CTR (Ker) 207: (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and CIT vs. G.K Senniappan (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 447: (2006) 284 ITR 220 (Mad) relied on. (page 159-160 ) 37.9. Similarly, reliance was placed on decision at Sr.No. 10 CIT Vs Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (P&H HC) 184 Taxman 6 ITA-1616/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 39 of 84 (available at Paper Book pages 167-169). Head Note thereof was relied upon…

Bhagwan Madhukar Kale, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1717/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 41

…atement recorded during the course of survey operation u/s 133A placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Balasubramanian, 354 ITR 116 (Mad.); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 210 Taxman 248 (SC); CBDT Instruction bearing F.No.286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 and CBDT Instruction bearing F.No.286/98/2013-IT(Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities submitted that the addi…

M/S. Bajrang Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1838/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 148Section 254(1)

…Hemraj Nebhomal & Sons vs CIT 146 Taxmann 3 45 (HC of MP)  Vishal Infrastructures Ltd. vs ACIT 104 ITD 537 (ITAT Hyderabad)  Mahesh Ohri vs ACIT 35 taxmann.com 301 (ITAT Tribunal)  ACIT vs Ajov Bakli 312/KOL/2013 (ITAT Kolkata)  CIT vs. P. Balasubramanian 33 Taxmann.com 130 (HC of Madras)  M/s. IIBS Infonet (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 6509/Del/20147 (ITAT Delhi)  CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works 196 taxmann 488 (HC of Delhi)  ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. 34 Taxmann.com 144 (ITAT Agra)  DCIT vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. 74 taxmann.com 224 (ITAT Delhi)  TDI Marketing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 8. We have considered the writt…

M/S. Bajrang Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1837/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 148Section 254(1)

…Hemraj Nebhomal & Sons vs CIT 146 Taxmann 3 45 (HC of MP)  Vishal Infrastructures Ltd. vs ACIT 104 ITD 537 (ITAT Hyderabad)  Mahesh Ohri vs ACIT 35 taxmann.com 301 (ITAT Tribunal)  ACIT vs Ajov Bakli 312/KOL/2013 (ITAT Kolkata)  CIT vs. P. Balasubramanian 33 Taxmann.com 130 (HC of Madras)  M/s. IIBS Infonet (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 6509/Del/20147 (ITAT Delhi)  CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works 196 taxmann 488 (HC of Delhi)  ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. 34 Taxmann.com 144 (ITAT Agra)  DCIT vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. 74 taxmann.com 224 (ITAT Delhi)  TDI Marketing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 8. We have considered the writt…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt R Meena, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 722/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1St Main Road, The Income-Tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Agrpm0228K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 40 Lakhs Made On The Basis Of Statement Recorded Of Husband Of Assessee Who Offered An Additional Income On Account Of Inflated Expenses Found During The Course Of Survey Proceedings. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Made On Account Of Payment Reduced In Cash Book At Rs.3,41,918/-, Cash Expenses Of Rs. 3 Lakhs Without Calling For Report From The Ao & Accepting The Additional Evidence & Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In Contravention Of The Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69B

…of CIT vs. Balasubramanian reported in (2013)215 Taxman 288.  Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Dhingra Meatl Works reported in (2011)196 Taxman 488.  Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 6.1. We note that Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT(supra) held that, statement of assessee recorded during the course of survey under provisions of section 133A(3)(iii) can be said to be useful or relevant to the assessment proceedings only in the circumstances when there is a material on record to prove through…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…ess corroborated by other evidences. The case of the assesse finds support from the decisions namely CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [254 CTR 2289(SC)] confirming the decision in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157] and Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [263 ITR 101 (Ker)].We also take note of the fact that these companies are part of the group companies of the appellant and therefore the creditworthiness as well as capacity of these companies cannot be examined independently and the capacity of the entire group as a whole has to be considered and not individually. We note that the appellant has filed the ev…

The DCIT, Circle-5, Bhavnagar vs. M/S. Kiran Ship Breaking Company, Bhavnagar

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 844/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri U. S. Bhati, AR & Shri AbhimanyuFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…s stock in the profit & Loss Account rightly. Moreover, it is settled position of the low that statement recorded ;"luring survey proceedings .u/s 133A does not have evidentiary value. In this connection reliance is placed in the cases of Paul Mathews v/s CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and CIT Ws S. larder Khan Son 300 ITR 1571 Mad). (I) The Id. A.O. had accepted the purchases, sales and stock position and he had not rejected the books of account hence he had also accepted the closing stock as on 31et March, 2012 as well as sales shown out of excess stock from 24th September, 2011 to 31st March, 2012. It means books of ac…

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

…the assessee had clearly explained the same to the AO by cogent materials— Order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue—CIT not justified in invoking powers under s. 263- PAUL MATHEWS & SONS vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) - Income from undisclosed sources—Addition—Addition on the basis of 8 statement recorded during survey under s. 133A—Sec. 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition—This…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…01.2018 during the course of the survey proceedings carried out u/s 133A at 245-246, Vardhman Sunrise Plaza, Vasundhra Enclave, New Delhi – 110 096. Relying on the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and that of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s S. Khader Khan and sons (2012) 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC) and a host of other judicial pronouncements, it was observed by the CIT(A) that as a statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act does not have any evidentiary value and the A.O is not authorised to administer oath and record a…

Amit H Patel (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC 3((4), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5762/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harith, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101)as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. 5.7 In view of the aforesaid judicial decisions, the statement on oath recorded of Shri Amit Patel wherein he could neither explain the basis for the investment in the said scrip nor explain the abnormal rise in the price of the said scrip despite weak fundamentals and no positive corporate announc…

M/S.Neminath Mumbai Shelter, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2554/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita No(S). 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year(S): 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Neminath Mumbai Shelter Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai 101/102, Kalpak Apartment, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, Road No. 16, Sidharth Nagar, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 062

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: S/shri G.N Makwana & Sushil Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…iew of the above discussion, we find force in the first ground of appeal raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs. 2 crores.” Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that as the statement elicited during the course of the survey operations is not recorded on oath, therefore, the same has no evidentiary value. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC), while upholdi…

M/S. Alankar Jewellers, Betul vs. DCIT Itarsi, Itarsi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 992/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2016-17

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…t be made the basis of any addition. " The scope 'of section 132(4) and section 133A [with regard to recording of statement of any person on oath] has been considered at length by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003} 263 ITR 101 [Kerla) Relevant findings of Hon'ble Court are reproduced hereunder: " ... we find that such a power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorised officer only under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act in the course of any search or seizure. Thus. the Income-tax Act. whenever it thought fit and necessary to confer such…

D.C.I.T., Circle-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Anjani Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 30/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133A

…me- 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. Senniuppan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad): (iv) The material or information found in t…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. 5.9 In view of the aforesaid judicial decisions, the statement on oath recorded of Shri Anil Agarwal wherein he admitted that the scrips of FFSL etc are being manipulated and also explained his role in the LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit providers, who were the clients of M/s. Comfort…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. 5.9 In view of the aforesaid judicial decisions, the statement on oath recorded of Shri Anil Agarwal wherein he admitted that the scrips of FFSL etc are being manipulated and also explained his role in the LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit providers, who were the clients of M/s. Comfort…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. 5.9 In view of the aforesaid judicial decisions, the statement on oath recorded of Shri Anil Agarwal wherein he admitted that the scrips of FFSL etc are being manipulated and also explained his role in the LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit providers, who were the clients of M/s. Comfort…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. 5.9 In view of the aforesaid judicial decisions, the statement on oath recorded of Shri Anil Agarwal wherein he admitted that the scrips of FFSL etc are being manipulated and also explained his role in the LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit providers, who were the clients of M/s. Comfort…