Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT

106 ITR 64Supreme Court of India1977#2269 most cited

What is Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT authority for?

An assessee's admission serves as an important piece of evidence but is not conclusive. The assessee can demonstrate that such an admission was incorrect or was made under a mistaken understanding.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT · 106 ITR 64 · Section 132(4) statement · admission not conclusive · retracted statement · mistaken understanding · evidentiary value of admission · evidence during search

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 69ASection 132Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qretraction of statementsection 158bb(1)section 193section 65b(4)section 158bbstatement under section 132(4)section 158b(b)retracted statement

Judgments citing Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT

M/S. Adarsh Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

ITA 142/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…e act and the revenue authorities are required to corroborate the admission in the statement with independent evidence for making additions to the income declared. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh V. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC) ii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC) iii) Avadh Kishore Das V. Ram copal AIR 1979 SC 861 11. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru erred in giving a finding on the basis of certain alleged evidences and also retracted statements that, the funds of the trust were not being fully utilized for the objectives of the trust but a part of the same was used for…

M/S. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

ITA 141/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…e act and the revenue authorities are required to corroborate the admission in the statement with independent evidence for making additions to the income declared. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh V. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC) ii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC) iii) Avadh Kishore Das V. Ram copal AIR 1979 SC 861 11. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru erred in giving a finding on the basis of certain alleged evidences and also retracted statements that, the funds of the trust were not being fully utilized for the objectives of the trust but a part of the same was used for…

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 405/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.405/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.19/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.405/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…t no addition could be made merely on the basis of a sworn statement. Those decisions include the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerala (91 ITR 18); the decision in Satinder Kumar (HUF) vs. CIT (106 ITR 64); the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in M/s Riveria Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.250/Mum/2013 dated 27-10- 2017). The assessee also referred to CBDT Instruction No.286/2/2003 dated 23-03-2003 reiterated on 18-12-2014 to the effect that any confession should be based on credible evidence and collection of evidence should be concentrated upon…

M/S. Adarsh Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harischchandra Naik M., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…t and the revenue authorities are required to corroborate the admission in the statement with independent evidence for making additions to the income declared. i) Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh V. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC) ii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC) iii) Avadh Kishore Das V. Ram copal AIR 1979 SC 861 10. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru erred in relying on the statements recorded from the administrator and also the accountant of the Trust ignoring the fact that, the said administrator retracted on the statement during the course of cross examination and in…

M/S. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 458/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harischchandra Naik M., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…t and the revenue authorities are required to corroborate the admission in the statement with independent evidence for making additions to the income declared. i) Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh V. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC) ii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC) iii) Avadh Kishore Das V. Ram copal AIR 1979 SC 861 10. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru erred in relying on the statements recorded from the administrator and also the accountant of the Trust ignoring the fact that, the said administrator retracted on the statement during the course of cross examination and in…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 66/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.21 The ld. A.R. further submitted that in Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC), it was held that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence, but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts, such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention. The rat…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 65/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.21 The ld. A.R. further submitted that in Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC), it was held that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence, but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts, such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention. The rat…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 64/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.21 The ld. A.R. further submitted that in Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC), it was held that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence, but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts, such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention. The rat…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 63/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.21 The ld. A.R. further submitted that in Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC), it was held that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence, but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts, such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention. The rat…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 62/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.21 The ld. A.R. further submitted that in Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC), it was held that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence, but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts, such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention. The rat…

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7760/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.AR
Section 131Section 147

…1 ITAs No.7759 & 7760/Mum/2019 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच”, मुंबई "ी ओम "काश कांत, लेखा सद" एंव "ीमती किवता राजगोपाल, "ाियक सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12) ITA Nos. 7759 & 7760/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Kamal Kishore Rathi, 115B, Shalimar Miracle Opp. ICICI Bank, S V Road Goregaon (West) Mumbai-400062. PAN:AAGPR1508N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. DCIT, CC-4(3), 1921, Air India Bldg Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 ..... "ितवादी/…

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7759/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.AR
Section 131Section 147

…1 ITAs No.7759 & 7760/Mum/2019 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच”, मुंबई "ी ओम "काश कांत, लेखा सद" एंव "ीमती किवता राजगोपाल, "ाियक सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं.7759 & 7760/मुं/2019 िन.व.2011-12) ITA Nos. 7759 & 7760/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Kamal Kishore Rathi, 115B, Shalimar Miracle Opp. ICICI Bank, S V Road Goregaon (West) Mumbai-400062. PAN:AAGPR1508N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. DCIT, CC-4(3), 1921, Air India Bldg Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 ..... "ितवादी/…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and, though not conclusive, yet could be decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (iii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (SC): It was held that it is true that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid conte…

Kohinoor Crafts, Moradabad vs. ACIT Central Circle, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9556/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kohinoor Crafts, Vs. Acit, Turki Estate, Kohinoor Tiraha, Central Circle, Sambhal Road, Moradabad. Moradabad. Pan: Aadfk7275N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 69C

…owing decisions:- 3 (i) Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs. Union of India & Ors., SLP (Civil) No.14028 of 1996, judgement dated 25.10.1996; (ii) Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100; (iii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) vs. CIT, (1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC); (iv) Avadh Kishore Das vs. Ram Gopal, AIR 1979 SC 861; (v) B. Kishore Kumar vs. CIT, 62 taxmann.com 215; (vi) Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274, 351 ITR 143 (Del); (vii) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 373 ITR 9; (viii) Smt. Dayawanti vs. CIT, 75 Taxmann.com 308; (ix) Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT, 214 CTR 218; (x) CIT v. Ashok Kumar…

Pkg Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5264/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishorFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

…Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and, though not conclusive, yet could be decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (iii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (SC): It was held that it is true that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid conte…

Pkg Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5263/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishorFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

…Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and, though not conclusive, yet could be decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (iii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (SC): It was held that it is true that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid conte…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6301/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) DCIT, Central Circle-6(3) Shri Manoj M. Desai Vs. Room No. 1926, 19th 204, Sahyadri Floor, Air India Building Neelkanth Vally Nariman Point Complex, 7th Road Mumbai-400 021. Rajawadi Mumbai-400 077. PAN : ABBPD2066K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nishit Gandhi Department by Shri Deepakant Prasad Date of Hearing 29.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 07.12.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of Lea…

Kuntluru Anil Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 514/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri A. Harish, ARFor Respondent: Sri Kiran Katta, DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ons made by the assessee might have been out of duress because there is no other prudent reason for the assessee to make such statements when there is no cogent evidence against him. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kumar HUF vs. CIT reported in 106 ITR 64 has categorically held that though admission made by the assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention.…

Kuntluru Anil Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 513/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri A. Harish, ARFor Respondent: Sri Kiran Katta, DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ons made by the assessee might have been out of duress because there is no other prudent reason for the assessee to make such statements when there is no cogent evidence against him. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kumar HUF vs. CIT reported in 106 ITR 64 has categorically held that though admission made by the assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention.…

The ITO, WD-4, Thiruvalla vs. M/S.Toms Enterprises, Changanacherry

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 442/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133A

…of Pullengode Rubber Produce vs. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. In the case of Satinder Kumar (HUF) vs. CIT (106 ITR 64), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the admission made by an assessee constitute a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in I.T.A. No.442/Coch/2018 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on vmisconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without consi…