Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

91 ITR 18Supreme Court of India1973#84 most cited

What is Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala authority for?

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

666

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala · 91 ITR 18 · admission not conclusive · retraction of statement · statement under section 132(4) · evidentiary value of admissions · entries in account books as evidence · proving admission incorrect · Section 68 · Section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 147Section 68Section 69ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementretracted statementstatement under section 132(4)section 158bbsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 132(4)on-moneysection 69bloose paperspanchnamasection 158b

Judgments citing Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

DCIT - CC 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1355/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1354/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

DCIT - CC 3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1353/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2527/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…e that statement was taken voluntarily. For that it is always emphasized that such statement may be recorded before independent/respectful witnesses. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullengole Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) has held that although an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was held that, it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2526/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…e that statement was taken voluntarily. For that it is always emphasized that such statement may be recorded before independent/respectful witnesses. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullengole Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) has held that although an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was held that, it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR…

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…e that statement was taken voluntarily. For that it is always emphasized that such statement may be recorded before independent/respectful witnesses. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullengole Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) has held that although an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was held that, it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…e that statement was taken voluntarily. For that it is always emphasized that such statement may be recorded before independent/respectful witnesses. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullengole Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) has held that although an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was held that, it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…e that statement was taken voluntarily. For that it is always emphasized that such statement may be recorded before independent/respectful witnesses. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullengole Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) has held that although an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was held that, it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2522/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…e that statement was taken voluntarily. For that it is always emphasized that such statement may be recorded before independent/respectful witnesses. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullengole Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) has held that although an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was held that, it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR…

ACIT - CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2521/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…e that statement was taken voluntarily. For that it is always emphasized that such statement may be recorded before independent/respectful witnesses. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullengole Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) has held that although an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was held that, it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1771/AHD/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R
Section 14BSection 35DSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 43Section 43B

…n as the same stands not provided in its books, and which fact the assessee’s claims to be immaterial. We do not consider so, though, by itself, that cannot be conclusive of the matter (refer: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and Others, 91 ITR 18 (SC)). As such, what would need to be seen for the purpose is whether the assessee is contractually obliged to pay the salary/wages to the (ex)employees of its said Unit, employment of whom it claims stands terminated. The same would warrant an examination of the relevant facts and the underlying contractual arrangement. The fact that the matter is…

The DCIT, Baroda Circle-1, Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1762/AHD/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R
Section 14BSection 35DSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 43Section 43B

…n as the same stands not provided in its books, and which fact the assessee’s claims to be immaterial. We do not consider so, though, by itself, that cannot be conclusive of the matter (refer: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and Others, 91 ITR 18 (SC)). As such, what would need to be seen for the purpose is whether the assessee is contractually obliged to pay the salary/wages to the (ex)employees of its said Unit, employment of whom it claims stands terminated. The same would warrant an examination of the relevant facts and the underlying contractual arrangement. The fact that the matter is…

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…e, however the additions/disallowance cannot be made solely on the basis of such statements in absence of any corroborative evidence supporting the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 has held that and admission is an extremely 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. It is also admitted fact that Praveen Kumar Jain has retracted from his statement by filing an affidavit. The validity of such retraction has also been settled ju…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…/assessee cannot resile from his earlier statement made on 10-11.11.2005 and 21.11.2005. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [19731 91 ITR 18 for the proposition that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was contended that it was open to the person who made the statement to show that it was incorrect. There cannot be any doubt about this position in law, but, in the present case the appellant/assessee has not produced an…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…ect. The department has no evidence/documents which prove that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can't be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact a…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…ect. The department has no evidence/documents which prove that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can't be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact a…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…ect. The department has no evidence/documents which prove that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can't be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact a…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…ect. The department has no evidence/documents which prove that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can't be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact a…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…ect. The department has no evidence/documents which prove that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can't be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact a…