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.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132(4), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 147, Section 68.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18)

Q: How many judgments cite Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala?

666 judgments on BharatTax cite Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…there 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 Pullangode 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 the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in th…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 119/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.115 to 120/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 Shri Jaipal Singh, 35, Chitragupt Nagar, 1st Imli Wala Phatak, Jaipur बनाम DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AKDPS 1712 Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA & S…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…there 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 Pullangode 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 the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in th…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…there 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 Pullangode 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 the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in th…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…there 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 Pullangode 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 the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in th…

Akesh Sangemermer(P) Ltd, Industrial Area vs. ITO Ward 1 Kishangarh, City Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1311/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…ubstantial questions of law framed by the appellant pertained to an open issue which stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one such decision was rendered in "M/s Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd. v. State of Kerala And Another" (1973) 19 ITR 18….….. 13. For the foregoing reasons, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 25/2024 is dismissed" Thus, since the addition is purely based on the statement of third party without bringing any details as to the fact that whether the assessee has suppressed the purchase or not recorded purchase. The details were not brought on record the addition merely on the s…

Renu Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5953/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Om Prakash Tantia, Vs. Dcit Plot No. 165-167, Sector-25, Central Circle – 25 Ballabgarh, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Abspt8332M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nisha Jain Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Acspj6903H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Tantia Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Aafpt4583L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

…he substantial questions of law framed by the appellant pertained to an open issue which stands concluded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court; on such decision was rendered in M/s. PUllangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Another” (1973) 19 ITR 18. (iii) In the case of Dr. M. Mallinga V. ACIT in TCA No. 284/11 the Hon’ble Madras High Court held as under :- 20 “7. While undisputedly, a statement recorded under Section 132 (4) would constitute evidence, and a valuable one at that, it cannot be the sole basis upon which an addition may be made in the context of block assessment. For the afores…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. J Vivek, Thiruvarur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1778/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1778/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. J. Vivek, Income Tax, No. 32/1, Mannai Nagar, Mannargudi, Central Circle 2(4), Thiruvarur 614 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aqqpv7997M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. S. Jecintha, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Jecintha, Advocate

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 68Section 69A

…settled position of law that the admission though important is not conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Lid. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18. The onus falls on the person who had earlier admitted to prove it wrong. Therefore, the statements could form the basis of assessment. 63. The statements given to the Assessing officer under section 132 (4) have legal force. Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported by affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect…

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA and Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR (Thru” V.H.)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1232/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. cuke The DCIT Vs. F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar Central Circle-2 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCK 7512 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma, CA and Shri R.K.…

Srinivas Shah Radraraju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 68

…produce any other material to support under assessment of sale consideration of land, assessment order was to be set aside. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (S.C). The sum and substance ratios laid down by various Courts is that addition cannot be made on the basis of statement recorded u/s 131 during the course of survey u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961, but it should be supported by corroborative evidences and in absence of any evidence, no addition can be made on the basis of statement alone. In the p…