← 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)

ACIT - CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2521/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

possible to identify whether the cash so found belongs to the proprietary concern or to the assessee company. Subsequently, when the statement under Section 132(4) of the IT Act was recordeddt. 10. 10.2014, which was concluded at his residence, Shiv Bannalal Jat categorically admitted that the cash amount ... Rs.1,24,43,210/- belonged his company M/s. Bannalal Jat Construction Private Limited and the same was its undisclosed income. Thereafter another statement under Section 132(4) of the IT Act was recorded at his business premises on 11.10.2014. In reply to question No. 8 he was asked to explain

Shri Ramavtar Mandavewala, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD)-CC- 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1972/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Shri Ramavatar Mandavewala Vs Jt.Cit(Osd)-Cc-2(4), Mumbai 1304, Advent Palazzo Ram Baug Lane Off S V Road, Malad East Pan : Aabpm6600R Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271A

locker No.122 which was alleged to be in the name of the assessee. Having admitted to the ownership of the locker, a statement under section 132(4) of the Act was recorded from the assessee. The impugned cash was seized and proceeding under section 153C of the Act was initiated ... requirement as search was conducted in M/s Gold Sukh Safety Vaults Ltd and not on the assessee. Though the assessee, in his statement under section 132(4) has admitted that he owns the locker No.122 in which the impugned undisclosed cash of Rs.15 lakhs was recovered, it becomes pertinent

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

ITA No.155/Bang/2022 M/s. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust For Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH

R G Patil & Company, Haveri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

route from levy of penalty. This provision is strictly applicable even if the assessee discloses the additional unaccounted income as admitted in statement under section 132(4) by paying appropriate tax in the return of income filed under section 153A/153C of the I.T. Act, and the assessment is made without

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

Sunil Agganyal held as under. "14. Therefore, although the counsel for the Revenue may be right in his submission that a statement under Section 132(4) of the Act carries much greater weight than the statement made under Section 133A of the Act, a retracted statement under Section 132(4

Apurva Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 8(2) (Erstwhile ACIT, Cent. Cir. - 45), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 720/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

proximity of transactions. Similar were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment ... lack of evidence to support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence

Kishore Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5469/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

proximity of transactions. Similar were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment ... lack of evidence to support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5468/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

proximity of transactions. Similar were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment ... lack of evidence to support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5467/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

proximity of transactions. Similar were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment ... lack of evidence to support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5466/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

proximity of transactions. Similar were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment ... lack of evidence to support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri B S Yediyurappa, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 14/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Asst.Commissioner Of Shri B.S. Yediyurappa, Income Tax, No.381, Davalgiri, Ii Main Circle - 1(3)(1) Vs. Vi Cross, Off 80 Ft Road, Bengaluru Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru Pan – Aaapy4922F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 148

course of cross examination the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that Shri Sunil D. Sahasrabhudhe has retracted in his statement under Section 132(4) of the Act dated 16.02.2012. In the course of the search proceedings of M/s. RNS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 07.03.2012 before the DDIT

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vyapar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7159/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Satyapraksh Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 106Section 132Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

instant appeal, it was seen that assessee had been confronted in respect of loose paper found at time of search by taking statement under section 132(4), wherein he had categorically denied paying any on-money for purchase of flats - Further, Assessing Officer examined selling party by issuing summons under

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

income that has been assessed in the hands of the assessee does not belong to him. The assessee had vide his statement under section 132(4) of the Act dated 20.01.2012 offered to pay tax on undisclosed income of Rs. 21.50 crores. The disclosure was essentially made on the basis

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

income that has been assessed in the hands of the assessee does not belong to him. The assessee had vide his statement under section 132(4) of the Act dated 20.01.2012 offered to pay tax on undisclosed income of Rs. 21.50 crores. The disclosure was essentially made on the basis

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

income that has been assessed in the hands of the assessee does not belong to him. The assessee had vide his statement under section 132(4) of the Act dated 20.01.2012 offered to pay tax on undisclosed income of Rs. 21.50 crores. The disclosure was essentially made on the basis

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

income that has been assessed in the hands of the assessee does not belong to him. The assessee had vide his statement under section 132(4) of the Act dated 20.01.2012 offered to pay tax on undisclosed income of Rs. 21.50 crores. The disclosure was essentially made on the basis

Mre. Kranti Bagad, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 458/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemrs. Kranti Bagad, Vs. Dcit, Cc-1(1) 1302, Sidhivinayak 9Th Floor, Pratistha Chs Ltd, Plot No. 3, Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg Sector – 14, Khanda Annexe, Mk Road, Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai – 400020. Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahppb2241N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Hiral.D.Sejpal. C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.K.K.Mishra. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.Hiral.D.Sejpal. C.A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.K.K.Mishra. CIT.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

estimated Mrs. Kranti Bagad, Mumbai. undisclosed income at a certain percentage of amount of disclosure made by assessee in her statement under section 132(4) - High Court in impugned order held that since no incriminating material was unearthed to show that there was failure by assessee to disclose franchise income

Rupinder Dhanoa Sidhu, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7470/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhryrupinderdhanoasidhu, Vs. Acit, C/O. R.S. Ahuja& Co, Ca Central Circle-31, C-353, Defence Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Acipd0250F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132oSection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

Shash is reproduced herein below:- In so far as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when ... Secondly, considering the illiterate, to be specific and to the point regarding the conditions stipulated by exception No. 2 while making statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The view taken by the Tribunal as well as the Allahabad High Court to the effect that even

Sri Anjaneyalu Prathipathi, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2838/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT(TP-2-DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 234

provisions under Section 271AAB also talks of the assessee declaring any undisclosed income in the course of the search in the statement under section 132(4). Admittedly in the present case, that is in the case of the assessee firm in appeal there has been no search. Search admittedly

M/S. Benchmark Infotech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, And Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(A)Section 153ASection 2Section 271Section 271A

Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that if the Revenue failed to question the assessee while recording his statement under section 132 (4) as regards the manner of deriving such income, the Revenue cannot jump to the consequential or later requirements of substantiating the manner of deriving ... which reads as under : “6.4. As per settled legal position, where the revenue had failed to question the assessee while recording the statement under section 132(4) of the Act as regards the manner of deriving such income, it cannot 11 ITA No.3067/Del/2016 M/s. Benchmark Infotech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. jump