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

Theacit, Cir-1(1), Ekm, Ernakulam vs. Sri.E.M.Johny, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…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 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid content…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.Mathai Xavier, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…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 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid content…

The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.Jose Mathew, M/S.E.V.Mthai & Sons, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…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 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid content…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Ernakulam vs. Sri.E.M.Paul, Edakattukudiyil, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…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 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid content…

The ITO, WD-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.Tomy Mathew Partner of Mathai Sons, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…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 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid content…

The ITO, WD-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.E.J.Sony, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…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 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid content…

The ITO, Ward-2, Thodupuzha vs. Sri.Martin Johny, Kothamangalam

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

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…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 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid content…

Sri.Essa Ismail Sait, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), Ernakulam

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

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

…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 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid content…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ate of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)J, while observing that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, the Apex Court held that it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. In Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [(1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC)] it was held that while 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 w ithout first considering the aforesaid contention. Th…

Mr. Sanjeev Nanda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1850/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ate of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)J, while observing that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, the Apex Court held that it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. In Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [(1977) 106 ITR 64 (SC)] it was held that while 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 w ithout first considering the aforesaid contention. Th…