← All Phrases

“retraction of statement”

Search & SeizureSection 132(4)Section 132(4)316 judgments

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

Leading authorities on retraction of statement

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.

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT
125 ITR 713 · 1980 · Supreme Court
962
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

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.

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.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
300 ITR 157 · 2008 · High Court
452
citing judgments

A statement recorded under duress during a survey, if subsequently retracted, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for an income-tax assessment; the assessment should instead rely on audited accounts.

Common Cause v. Union of India
77 Taxmann.com 245 · 2017 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Additions under the Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on entries in loose sheets, dumb documents, or mere sworn statements without independent, reliable, and cogent corroborating evidence. Uncorroborated loose papers are not admissible evidence on their own, even if the original context was criminal investigation.

Judgments citing retraction of statement

Assistant Commissioner of Icnome Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

ITA 1102/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon'Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Central Circle-2(2) Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 2 आदेश / Order Per Bench: 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2014-15 To 2017-18 Arises Out Of A Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 04-08-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.153A Of The Act Dated 29-09-2021. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Stated To Be Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication

For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

investment mentioned in the image, he retracted his earlier admission by stating that amount mentioned in the image were only offer prices. The retraction of statement, without any substantiating evidence is not valid. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the nothing in the mobile phone was saved after

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1101/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

investment mentioned in the image, he retracted his earlier admission by stating that amount mentioned in the image were only offer prices. The retraction of statement, without any substantiating evidence is not valid. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the nothing in the mobile phone was saved after

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1100/CHNY/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

investment mentioned in the image, he retracted his earlier admission by stating that amount mentioned in the image were only offer prices. The retraction of statement, without any substantiating evidence is not valid. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the nothing in the mobile phone was saved after

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

ITA 1099/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon'Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Central Circle-2(2) Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 2 आदेश / Order Per Bench: 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2014-15 To 2017-18 Arises Out Of A Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 04-08-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.153A Of The Act Dated 29-09-2021. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Stated To Be Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

investment mentioned in the image, he retracted his earlier admission by stating that amount mentioned in the image were only offer prices. The retraction of statement, without any substantiating evidence is not valid. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the nothing in the mobile phone was saved after

Subhash Kumar Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 707/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamshi Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

been held that where assessment order has been based on sole basis of statement recorded during the course of survey and after retraction of statement, the Assessing Officer did not produce any other material to support under assessment of sale consideration of land, assessment order was to be set aside

Bikash Kumar Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 405/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamshi Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

been held that where assessment order has been based on sole basis of statement recorded during the course of survey and after retraction of statement, the Assessing Officer did not produce any other material to support under assessment of sale consideration of land, assessment order was to be set aside

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 147Section 68

LTCG entries. 7.15 a) In the GOA no. 14,15,16 the Appellant contended as under: * AO erred in ignoring the affidavit of retraction of statements dated 30.09.2015. * AO ought to appreciate that when statements were recorded the Appellant was medically unfit. * Appellants statements were coercively obtained by DDIT ... Hyderabad on 15.09.2015 and 18.09.2015. b) Appellant filed affidavit of retraction of statements recorded on 15.09.2015 and 18.09.2015 before DDIT(Inv.), Hyderabad on 30.09.2015 and same is reproduced in para 10 of assessment order. c) Statement of Appellant was recorded during 133A proceedings on 15.09.2015 and appellant reconfirmed the contents

Sheetal Collection, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jalgaon

ITA 1074/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Sheetal Collection Shop No. 16, Fule Market, Jalgaon-425001 Pan: Acifs1530K. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr V V Kawdia [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1063185555(1) Dt. 22/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal-11 Pune [‘Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] The Assessee Is In Appeal. 2. Tersely Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In Retail Trading Business Of Readymade Garments. During The Year Under Consideration A Survey Action U/S 133A Of The Act On The Assessee Firm Was Carried Out & A Statement Of Its Partner Was Recorded. In Answering To Question Number 16 The Partner Declared/Admitted Certain

For Appellant: Mr V V Kawdia [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

could neither discover any error or omission nor there was any in the records, books & documents etc., came to surface. Insofar as the retraction of statement is concerned, unlike admission made in statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act, the assessee may specifically be required in writing to retract