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.

How many judgments cite Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT?

266 judgments on BharatTax cite Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT (263 ITR 101), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 132(4), Section 142(1), Section 147.

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT (263 ITR 101)

A.S.Chinmai, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3434/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita No.3434(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri A.S.Chinmai, Prop: Sri Kanaka Jewellers, B.M.Road, Hassan Pan No.Aftpc1672C Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Vijayanagar, Belur Road, Hassan Respondent Appellant By : Shri B. Sharath Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Siddappajji, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri B. Sharath Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Siddappajji, Addl.CIT

Section 133A

…is of statement taken during the course of survey operations, since the said statement does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance was placed on the following case law:- (i) CIT Vs, S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 [SC] (ii) Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 [Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. M/s. Hotel Samrat [2010] 323 ITR 353 [Kerala] (iv) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metl Works, [2010] 328 ITR 384 [del]) 4 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and enhanced the addition to R.83.33 lakhs with the following observations; “The aforesaid submission was carefully considered on the admitted facts. The evidence…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastucture & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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.); (Hi) 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 133Af vide CITv. G. K. Senniappan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad.); (iv) The material or information found in…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Best Paper Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 975/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…imilar factual matrix in CIT V/s S.Khader Khan [300 ITR 157] after considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. V/s State of Kerala [91 ITR 18] & Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Paul Matthews and Sons V/s CIT [263 ITR 101] culled out following principle as to statement made during survey operations u/s 133A: - From the foregoing discussion, the following principles can be culled out: (i) An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorre…

Best Paper Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 772/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…imilar factual matrix in CIT V/s S.Khader Khan [300 ITR 157] after considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. V/s State of Kerala [91 ITR 18] & Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Paul Matthews and Sons V/s CIT [263 ITR 101] culled out following principle as to statement made during survey operations u/s 133A: - From the foregoing discussion, the following principles can be culled out: (i) An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorre…

The Income Tax Officer, Katra vs. Smt. Madhu Gupta, Reasi (J & K)

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 643/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 643/Asr./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Madhu Gupta, Ward-2(5), L/H Of Late Shri. Subash Chander Katra Gupta (Deceased), Prop. M/S Neeraj Shawl Emporium & New Tridev Hotel, Shive Khori, Reasi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahjpg2341N Assessee By : Shri. P. N. Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Charan Dass, Dr Date Of Hearing :15.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Jammu Dated 23.06.2016. 2. The Sole Issue Involved Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.85,98,690/- On Account Of Undisclosed Income Surrendered During Survey.

For Appellant: Shri. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, DR

Section 133A

…ct and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not disclose the correct state of facts. Also in view of the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews And Sons vs. C.I.T. reported in (2003) 263 ITR 101, where it has been held that whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the Act, it is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law. Also no books of account has been rejected by t…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Shreeji Sulz Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 669/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…nt cannot be made basis of addition. An admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect." PAUL MATHEWS AND SONS V. CIT [2003J 263 ITR 101 (KERALA): "We find that such a power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorized 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 power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly p…

Shreejesulz Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 507/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…nt cannot be made basis of addition. An admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect." PAUL MATHEWS AND SONS V. CIT [2003J 263 ITR 101 (KERALA): "We find that such a power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorized 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 power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly p…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ashapura Rubber Udyog, Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1917/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri P. S. Naik

Section 131Section 147

…of the alleged bogus purchases. In this regard, the CIT(A) relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgement in the case of Paul Mathews & sons vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and also relied on the CBDT Instruction No.286/2/2003 dated 10.03.2003 and appreciated the reasons for retraction relating to the offer of entire bogus purchases income of the assessee during the proceedings u/s 131 of the Act. 5. In the background facts narrated above before us, ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of the Ass…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ashapura Rubber Udyog, Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1916/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri P. S. Naik

Section 131Section 147

…of the alleged bogus purchases. In this regard, the CIT(A) relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgement in the case of Paul Mathews & sons vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and also relied on the CBDT Instruction No.286/2/2003 dated 10.03.2003 and appreciated the reasons for retraction relating to the offer of entire bogus purchases income of the assessee during the proceedings u/s 131 of the Act. 5. In the background facts narrated above before us, ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of the Ass…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ashapura Rubber Udyog, Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1915/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri P. S. Naik

Section 131Section 147

…of the alleged bogus purchases. In this regard, the CIT(A) relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgement in the case of Paul Mathews & sons vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and also relied on the CBDT Instruction No.286/2/2003 dated 10.03.2003 and appreciated the reasons for retraction relating to the offer of entire bogus purchases income of the assessee during the proceedings u/s 131 of the Act. 5. In the background facts narrated above before us, ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of the Ass…

M/S Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 690/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 690/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/s Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. (Formerly known as M/s Stone Circle-2, Age Ltd.), Jaipur. Gram Siapura, Diggi Malpura Road, Post- Shikarpura, Sanganer, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCS 9876 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shr…

M/S Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Mbd House, Central Circle-Ii, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach6111J Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jalandhar. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Case U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act And, Thus, Framing Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3)/153C At An Income Of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That There Was No Reason To Believe That The Income Of The

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…transaction. Therefore, the addition made was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) " ITO Vs Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 32 TTJ (Pune) TM 300 " Paul Mathews and Sons Vs CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) " CIT Vs Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras) " Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 0713 (SC) " Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 127 DTR 241 " Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhailal Vs ITO in ITA Nos. 562 & 591/Ahd.2015 ITA No. 181/Asr./2017 9 Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. 7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submiss…

Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2159/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, B-174, Ground Floor, Ward-61(5), Nirman Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110092. Pan: Aagpa1651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.P. Ganguli, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2018 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Doctor & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th March, 2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,77,510/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On The Ground That The Assessee Has Received Cash Payment Of Rs.2 Lakh During F.Y. 2008-09 Which Was Largely Unaccounted For As Per The Information Received From The Dcit, Circle 1, New Delhi. The Assessee, In Response To The Same, Submitted That The Original Return Filed On 20Th March, 2010 May Be Treated As Return Filed In Response To Notice U/S 148. On Being Asked By The Assessee To Issue The Reasons Recorded, The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Ganguli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr.DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 352 ITR 480. He submitted that similar view has been held in the case of K. Velayutham vs. ACIT in Writ Petition No.33917 to 33920 of 2017 and in the case of P. Mathews & Sons vs. CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.). Referring to the statement recorded by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, he submitted that Shri Chug has categorically stated in his statement that he has not paid any amount to the assessee Dr. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and the Assessing Officer has conveniently ignored the relevant answer of Shri Chug. He a…