← All Phrases

“voluntary admission”

Search & SeizureSection 132(4)Section 132(4)73 judgments

The decision most relied on for voluntary admission is Kishore Kumar v. Dy. CIT (62 Taxmann.com 215), cited in 212 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on voluntary admission

Kishore Kumar v. Dy. CIT
62 Taxmann.com 215 · 2015 · Supreme Court
212
citing judgments

A sworn statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search and seizure operation is a strong piece of evidence for assessing undisclosed income, particularly when supported by subsequent actions like filing returns and paying taxes on the admitted income.

CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal
53 Taxmann.com 306 · 2015 · High Court
137
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation is akin to a statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be treated as a proven fact or clinching evidence on its own, serving merely as a basis for further investigation.

Pon Adithan v. Dy. Director, Narcotics Control Bureau
6 SCC 1 · 1999 · Reported
73
citing judgments

A retracted confession or statement can serve as corroborative evidence, but it cannot form the sole basis for an assessment or conviction without independent supporting material.

CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del)
86 ITD 13 · 2003 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

Additions cannot be made solely based on third-party information without corroborating evidence, especially when relying on section 132(4) admissions.

K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India
197 ITR 196 · 1992 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

A lawful assessment must be based on material evidence and cannot rely solely on an admission or statement, especially if obtained by inducement, threat, coercion, or improper means. The voluntary nature of a statement is a prerequisite for it to be acted upon, and authorities must apply their mind to subsequent retractions.

Roshan Beevi v. Jt. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Deptt
15 ELT 289 · 1984 · High Court
57
citing judgments

An authority must record its opinion before accepting an inculpatory statement made under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act; additions to income cannot be made solely based on such statements, as the assessment order may otherwise be vitiated.

Sri Ganesh Trading Company v. CIT
257 CTR 159 · 2013 · High Court
56
citing judgments

An addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search, especially if made under pressure or later retracted, is not sustainable without corroborative evidence. Similarly, additions based on uncorroborated loose papers or unaccounted cash receipts lacking corresponding assets are unsustainable.

Video Master v. JCIT
378 ITR 374 · 2015 · Supreme Court
56
citing judgments

A statement made by a partner during a search and seizure operation disclosing undisclosed income can be used as evidence to make an addition to the assessee's income, and such a disclosure is not considered a case of 'no evidence'.

Judgments citing voluntary admission

Mohammed Ibrabim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 69B

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 414/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they raise an estoppel and shift

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 175/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they raise an estoppel and shift

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt Ltd., Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 168/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA

Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt Ltd., Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 167/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they raise an estoppel and shift

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 611/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

ITA Nos.610 & 611/Bang/2024 M/s. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore Page 1 of 37 M/s. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore IN THE INCOME

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 610/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission is not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 247/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 69C

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 244/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 69C

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 243/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 69C

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 242/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 69C

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 241/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 69C

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 240/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 69C

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece