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 366,339 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

Dct - CC- 5(2), Mumbai vs. Kaygee Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result,both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 3539/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. Srinivas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Hari S. Raheja/ Sh Mani Jain, ARs
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 68

…that the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) is based on appraisal of facts and also supported by various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangod Rubber Products Company Limited vs. State of Kerela and Others 91 ITR 18 where the court held that although admission is a best piece of evidence, but that itself is not a conclusive evidence unless said admission is supported by corroborative evidences. 11. In this case, on perusal of facts available on record, we find that the assesseehas discharged its onus caste upon under section 68 of the Act, by filing enormou…

M/S.Arham Neejdeep Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-4, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Arham Neejdeep Realtors Vs. Acit, Circle-4 Shop No.8, Milan Apartment Thane, Room No.02 Near Post Office ‘A’Wing, Ashar It Park Vasai (W)-401 202 Wagle Indl.Estate Thane-400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aasfa6761C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 133A

…survey statements. This legal proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 (SC). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala and other 91 ITR 18 (SC) has reiterated similar position of law. The ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Shri Amod Shivlal Shah VS ACIT in ITA.No.795/Mum/2015 has considered identical issue and held that unless further corroborative evidences supports admission of income during the course of survey u/s 133A, no additions could be made only on the basis of statement recorded d…

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

ITA 4984/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 4984/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-9(2)(1), 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2782M प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 351/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 4984/Mum/2017 For Ay 2014-15) M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Income Tax-9(2)(1), Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DRFor Respondent: Shri B.v. Jhaveri, AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…iate the same. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in similar factual matrix in CIT V/s S. Khader Khan[300 ITR 157] after considering 12 C.O.No. 351/Mum/2018 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…

Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

…evidence so that his claim can be factually sustainable. Mere making allegation will not be accepted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18 (SC) and submitted that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s. Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in DB IT Appeal No. 140/2018 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) as well…

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)

…t it is incorrect and that the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not correctly disclose the correct state of facts, vide decision of the apex court in Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18; M/s. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Developers Ltd., (ii) In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever st…

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

…gent material to substantiate the same. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in similar 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…

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

…gent material to substantiate the same. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in similar 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…

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

…e and the assessee has the right to prove that such admission made was incorrect. This proposition has been fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala And Another reported in (1973) 91 ITR 18, where it has been held that admission is an extremely important price of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect 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…

Shri Prahlad Kumar Arora, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Alwar

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

ITA 1245/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 69

…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 Nos. 1244 & 1245/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Prahlad Kumar Arora, Cuke ITO, Vs. 3/34, Kala Kuwa, Housing Ward 2(1), Board, Bhadbujya Wali Gali, Alwar. Ashoka Talkies, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ATAPA 6106 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo d…

Shri Prahlad Kumar Arora, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Alwar

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

ITA 1244/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 69

…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 Nos. 1244 & 1245/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Prahlad Kumar Arora, Cuke ITO, Vs. 3/34, Kala Kuwa, Housing Ward 2(1), Board, Bhadbujya Wali Gali, Alwar. Ashoka Talkies, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ATAPA 6106 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo d…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 289/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…annot be relied upon. Further Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 37 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. (i) 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. (ii) 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…e that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was 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. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that ad…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…e that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was 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. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that ad…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nitin Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…e that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was 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. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that ad…

Nitin Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 128/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…annot be relied upon. Further Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 37 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. (i) 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. (ii) 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…

M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 127/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…annot be relied upon. Further Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 37 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. (i) 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. (ii) 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…

Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 126/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…e that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was 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. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that ad…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 125/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…e that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was 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. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that ad…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…e that surrender in statement by assessee is correct, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd v/s State of Kerala & Another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was 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. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that ad…

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

…the appellant is substantially covered, to the extent of excess stock is explained with plausible documents, by settled law on admission and retraction by ratios of following judgments in cases of: PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC): " C.I.T. V. BHANWARLAL 225 ITR 870 (RAJ): " KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS CIT (2008) 14 DTR 257 (GUJ.): 5.3.19 In view of above finding it is also held that, the inescapable conclusion to a great extent in the present case is that, the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act was not the only piece of evidence for making assessment u/s 153A…