← All Phrases

“statement under section 132(4)”

Search & SeizureSection 132(4)Section 132(4)692 judgments

The decision most relied on for statement under section 132(4) is Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (281 CTR 241), cited in 1,335 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on statement under section 132(4)

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
352 ITR 480 · 2013 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Society v. UOI
394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court
493
citing judgments

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

Judgments citing statement under section 132(4)

Nilesh M. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5110/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5110/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5111/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5112/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5113/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5114/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5115/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5116/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh/ ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

sustainable. vi) Reliance was also placed on the various judicial precedents wherein it has been held that where incriminating material is found / statement under section 132(4) of the Act is recorded during the search of a third-party, but no evidence is obtained 19 I.T.A. No. 5110/Mum/2018 & Others Shri

Devendra Rajnikant Ladhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circ;E-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadala & Shri Gagan Goyaldevendra Rajnikant Ladhani, 1, Om Building, Opp. Rishi Vihar Complex, Bolinj Road, Virar (W), District-Palghar-401303 Pan: Abfpl5079C ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16X, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : Sh. Nimesh Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 30.12.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.3,82,84,000/- Made U/S 69A Of The It. Act, 1961 As Unexplained Money On Account Of Cash Found At The Residence & From The Bank Lockers Of The Appellant During The Course Of 2 Ita No. 178/Mum/2021- Devendra Ranjikant Ladhani

For Appellant: Sh. Subhodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Sh. Nimesh Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appellant/assessee. At the residential premises and bank lockers cash amounting to Rs. 3,82,84,000/- was found. Assessee in his statement under section 132(4) admitted that the same cash belong to him and offered for taxation for AY 2015-16 i.e. the year of search. But the return