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 366,459 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

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 198/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Pune vs. M/S Sinhgad Technical Education Society (Trust), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1654/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153A

…ere was additional income as sought to be assessed and that there was no material to support that there was such income, this contention in our view is not correct. As held by the Supreme Court in Pullan-gode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1973) 91 ITR 18 an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment. The mere fact that 53 M/s. Sinhagad Technical Education Society the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assess…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1167/AHD/2016 (AY 2010-11) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Raj Enterprises, Deputy Commissioner of 7-Nitinagar Society, Income Tax, Vs Opp. VasantVihar Society, Circle-2(3), Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007 PAN: AAKFR 6024 M The Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee The Deputy Commissioner of Raj Enterprises, Income Tax, 7-Nitinagar Society, Vs Circle-2(3), Surat. Opp. VasantVihar Society, UdhanaMagdalla Road, Surat – 395007 PAN: AAKFR 6024 M Appellant/ Revenue…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1167/AHD/2016 (AY 2010-11) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Raj Enterprises, Deputy Commissioner of 7-Nitinagar Society, Income Tax, Vs Opp. VasantVihar Society, Circle-2(3), Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007 PAN: AAKFR 6024 M The Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee The Deputy Commissioner of Raj Enterprises, Income Tax, 7-Nitinagar Society, Vs Circle-2(3), Surat. Opp. VasantVihar Society, UdhanaMagdalla Road, Surat – 395007 PAN: AAKFR 6024 M Appellant/ Revenue…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Raj Enterprises, Surat

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1167/AHD/2016 (AY 2010-11) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Raj Enterprises, Deputy Commissioner of 7-Nitinagar Society, Income Tax, Vs Opp. VasantVihar Society, Circle-2(3), Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007 PAN: AAKFR 6024 M The Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee The Deputy Commissioner of Raj Enterprises, Income Tax, 7-Nitinagar Society, Vs Circle-2(3), Surat. Opp. VasantVihar Society, UdhanaMagdalla Road, Surat – 395007 PAN: AAKFR 6024 M Appellant/ Revenue…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 69/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the Partners of the assessee firm but also documents found and seized during the course of search which were relied upon in the assessment order. (f) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber ProduceCo. Ltd. V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, an admission in an extremely important piece of evidence. (g) From the details available on record, it is inferable that the assessee firm has been regularly indulging in practice of booking bogus labour expenses asevident from the labour sheets of various years. 9 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur 3 The Ld. CIT(…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 117/JPR/2021[ 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the Partners of the assessee firm but also documents found and seized during the course of search which were relied upon in the assessment order. (f) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber ProduceCo. Ltd. V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, an admission in an extremely important piece of evidence. (g) From the details available on record, it is inferable that the assessee firm has been regularly indulging in practice of booking bogus labour expenses asevident from the labour sheets of various years. 9 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur 3 The Ld. CIT(…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ ‘‘ए’’, च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 1616/CHD/2019 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील [Assessment Year 2011-12] M/s Atop Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, बनाम Plot No. 181, Industrial Area-II, Circle 1(1), VS Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AACCA4741P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Responde…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…udicial precedents to press home the issues flagged by her as mentioned above:- a) Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 434 (Chd.) b) Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 84 TTJ (Delhi) 625. c) Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) d) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (Punj.) (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} 16. Considered the rival submissions and have given anxious thought to the questions raised before us. We have carefully considered the orders of the lower authorities, the submissions made…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…udicial precedents to press home the issues flagged by her as mentioned above:- a) Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 434 (Chd.) b) Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 84 TTJ (Delhi) 625. c) Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) d) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (Punj.) (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} 16. Considered the rival submissions and have given anxious thought to the questions raised before us. We have carefully considered the orders of the lower authorities, the submissions made…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…udicial precedents to press home the issues flagged by her as mentioned above:- a) Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 434 (Chd.) b) Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 84 TTJ (Delhi) 625. c) Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) d) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (Punj.) (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} 16. Considered the rival submissions and have given anxious thought to the questions raised before us. We have carefully considered the orders of the lower authorities, the submissions made…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Dipak Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

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

…s in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and Pankaj and Deepak Kalani 47 (SS) 99 of 2016 and others it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Pankaj Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

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

…s in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and Pankaj and Deepak Kalani 47 (SS) 99 of 2016 and others it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat…

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)

…ers, Surat 7. The assessee has also filed copy of following case laws on record :  CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Sons 23 Taxmann.com 413 (SC)  Paul Mathews and sons vs. CIT 29 Taxmann 416 (Kerala HC).  Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC)  Pushpa Vihar vs ACIT 48 TTJ 389 (ITAT Bombay)  ACIT vs. M/s. Motiwala & Sons 108 2/Del/2007 (ITAT Delhi)  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)  CI…

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)

…ers, Surat 7. The assessee has also filed copy of following case laws on record :  CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Sons 23 Taxmann.com 413 (SC)  Paul Mathews and sons vs. CIT 29 Taxmann 416 (Kerala HC).  Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC)  Pushpa Vihar vs ACIT 48 TTJ 389 (ITAT Bombay)  ACIT vs. M/s. Motiwala & Sons 108 2/Del/2007 (ITAT Delhi)  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)  CI…

DCIT, Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Signature Builders and Coloniser, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 219/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…s in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar…

DCIT-Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Singnature Colonisers, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 218/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…s in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 249/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Vs. M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ltd., 132-A, Sector A, Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcm 2929 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.20/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.249/Ctk/2017) Out Of Ita No.249/Ctk/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 13 M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Ltd., 132-A, Sector A, Sector-A, Zone-A, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcm 2929 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri J.M.Patnaik J.M.Patnaik , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 7.3.2017 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. P A G E 1 | 10 C.O.No.20/Ctk/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 133A

…in the case of CIT v. Shardaben K. Modi (2013) 4 TMI 777 where an addition made on the basis of confessional statement recorded at the time of survey was struck off by the ITAT. 4.4 In the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that 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 4.5 In the light of the above discussion and since the addition of Rs.5.33 crores have been made by the AO squarely on basis of the confession statement of Sri Mishra, director and the A…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 248/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 (In Ita No.248/Ctk/2017) .248/Ctk/2017) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri J.M.Patnaik J.M.Patnaik , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 7.3.2017 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. P A G E 1 | 10 C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 133A

…in the case of CIT v. Shardaben K. Modi (2013) 4 TMI 777 where an addition made on the basis of confessional statement recorded at the time of survey was struck off by the ITAT. 4.4 In the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that 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 4.5 In the light of the above discussion and since the addition of Rs,5.33 crores been made by the AO squarely on basis of the confession statement of Sri Mishra, director and the AO has…

DCIT-Central-2 Bhopal, Bhopal vs. M/S Sainath Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-

ITA 268/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

Section 132(4)

…s in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar…