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 366,314 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

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2649/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) Sandeep Bindra, Vs. ACIT, 50, Defence Colony Market, Central Circle-9, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPB7687B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2007-08) ACIT, Vs. Sandeep Bindra, Central Circle-9, 50, Defence Col…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2648/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) Sandeep Bindra, Vs. ACIT, 50, Defence Colony Market, Central Circle-9, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPB7687B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2007-08) ACIT, Vs. Sandeep Bindra, Central Circle-9, 50, Defence Col…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shraddha Constructions & Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 461/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 132Section 132(4)

…Tax Audit Report could not have formed the basis of additions/ allowances by the Assessing Officer. On this aspect of the matter the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 being apposite are extracted hereinbelow: It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremely…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Shivaji Bhagwanrao Jadhav, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

…Tax Audit Report could not have formed the basis of additions/ allowances by the Assessing Officer. On this aspect of the matter the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 being apposite are extracted hereinbelow: It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremel…

Shivaji Bhagwanrao Jadhav, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 699/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

…Tax Audit Report could not have formed the basis of additions/ allowances by the Assessing Officer. On this aspect of the matter the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 being apposite are extracted hereinbelow: It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremel…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Shivaji Bhagwanrao Jadhav, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 682/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

…Tax Audit Report could not have formed the basis of additions/ allowances by the Assessing Officer. On this aspect of the matter the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 being apposite are extracted hereinbelow: It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremel…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.S.Aggarwal

ITA - 169 / 2005HC Delhi23 Apr 2018
Section 132Section 158Section 260

…ITA No. 169/2005+connected appeal Page 1 of 77 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 169/2005 Reserved on :1st November, 2017 % Date of decision:23rd April, 2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz and Mr. Prashant Bhargava, Advocates for the Income Tax Department. Versus M. S. AGGARWAL .…

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 832/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…ills Ltd vs CIT - 26 ITR 775 – SC (CLPB page 155/156) A.S.Sivan Pillai vs CIT - 34 ITR 328 - Madras HC(CLPB page 162/163) On the issue that admission is not conclusive and has no evidentiary value: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr - 91 ITR 18 - Supreme Court (CLPB page 189/190) CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Son - 352 ITR 480 – SC (CLPB page 336) CBDT Instruction No.F.No.286/2/2003/IT(Inv) - confession of additional income during the course of search & seizure and survey operation (CLPB page 167) On the issue that loose sheets have no evidentiary value/no corroborative material: Common Cause (A…

Zakaulla Siddqui, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui Asst. Commissioner Of A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Income-Tax, Central Vs. House, Napean Sea Road, Circle-47, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 A.C.I.T.-Cc-8(4) Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. House, Napean Sea Road, Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…v. DCIT [2015] 155 ITD 149 (Hyd-Trib). It is also submitted that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement recorded if assessee had explained later the correct facts. He relies on the decision in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. v. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, Aishwarya Rai v. Dy. CIT 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) and JyotichandBhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2013) 86 DTR 289 (Pune)(Trib.). 6.6 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. We begin with the relevant case laws on the above issue. In Shri Hiten Mehta (s…

Amod Shivlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 795/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…higher amount of income at the time of survey, which ostensibly was not based on any account books, but was merely an estimation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber 9 Shri Amod Shivlal Shah Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerala & Anr., 91 ITR 18 (SC) recognised the trite law that it was open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was imperative that in such a situation assessee ought to be given a proper opportunity to show the correct state of facts. In fact, in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, assessee was atte…

Design Core, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 617/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234BSection 244A(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…he admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of accounts do not disclose the correct state of facts as was held in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v/s State of Kerala & Others (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). Moreover, there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Therefore, even if the assessee has made some commitment, it cannot work as an estoppel and if the assessee still feels aggrieved of the addition made by the AO, he can agitate in the appeal. Kindly refer Sanjay Tandon (individual) v/s ACIT (2008) 119 TTJ 277 (Lucknow). Also refer R…

Sh Suresh Chand Agarwal, Agra vs. ACIT 4(1), Agra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 357/AGR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AvocateFor Respondent: ShriInderjeet Singh, CIT DR

…ot correct. I have considered this decision and I find that this decision is against the assessee because after referring to the above principle of surrender as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puilangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment and mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement, could not make the statement unacceptable. In this regard, it has also been clarified in this decision that the burden lay on the assessee to establish that the…

Priti Devendra Shah, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1511/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1508 To 1511/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 153C

…Tax Audit Report could not have formed the basis of additions/ allowances by the Assessing Officer. On this aspect of the matter the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 being apposite are extracted hereinbelow : It is no doubt true that e ntries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extre…

Priti Devendra Shah, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1510/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1508 To 1511/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 153C

…Tax Audit Report could not have formed the basis of additions/ allowances by the Assessing Officer. On this aspect of the matter the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 being apposite are extracted hereinbelow : It is no doubt true that e ntries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extre…

Priti Devendra Shah, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1509/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1508 To 1511/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 153C

…Tax Audit Report could not have formed the basis of additions/ allowances by the Assessing Officer. On this aspect of the matter the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 being apposite are extracted hereinbelow : It is no doubt true that e ntries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extre…

Priti Devendra Shah, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1508/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1508 To 1511/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 153C

…Tax Audit Report could not have formed the basis of additions/ allowances by the Assessing Officer. On this aspect of the matter the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 being apposite are extracted hereinbelow : It is no doubt true that e ntries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extre…

ACIT 21(2) vs. Oriental Decorators, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 820/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 820/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Hari.S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ein. It is only a piece of evidence the relevancy of which is required to be judged basing on the material evidence and circumstances in which it is made. 36, In the decision in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co, Ltd. vs. State, of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253: (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), the 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 who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. I.T.A. No. 820/Mum/2015 37. Statement of the surveyed party recorded during the course of survey proceedings under section 133A has n…

Reymount Commodities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3885/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 28Section 68

…nly on the ground that the PAN details of the creditors have not been furnished. In this regard, he relied upon plethora of judgements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) and Nagubai Ammal vs B Sharma Rao AIR 1956 SC 593. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Khader Khan & Sons (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad). 21 Reymont Commodities P Ltd 12. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was factually incorrect in deleting the addition made by th…

M/S Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2017AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No.720/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke M/s Bannalal Jat Construction ACIT, Central Circle-2 Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Bus Stand, Jahajpur, Ajmer District Bhilwara LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AACCB9357J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri A.S.Nehara…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Jhandewalas Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, ground no

ITA 326/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Shalendra Sharma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133A

…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; (ii) In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorized officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination 10 ITA No. 326 & 325/JP/17 & CO No. 19 & 18/JP/17 ACIT, Jaipur, vs. Jhandewalas Food Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur can also be used in eviden…