← 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

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 836/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

ITA No.835 & 836/Bang/2024 Sri Maruthivandith Reddy Mannu, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 835/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

ITA No.835 & 836/Bang/2024 Sri Maruthivandith Reddy Mannu, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

K J Somaiya and Sons Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4241/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year :2015-16 K J Somaiya & Sons Private Limited, 45-47, Somaiya Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaack-1894-K ---- Appellant Vs. Acit -2(2)(1),Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

agree with the contentions of the assessee.In this regard, the Assessing Officer observed that withdrawal of depreciation on tenancy right by the assessee is voluntary admission of concealment of income by the assessee. Accordingly, he levied penalty of Rs.4

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5096/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

submitted on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance is arising out of clerical error and out of the voluntary admission of the error additions were made. It was claimed that assessee had not preferred any appeal and deposited the demand within 30 days. Further it was submitted that

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5095/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

submitted on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance is arising out of clerical error and out of the voluntary admission of the error additions were made. It was claimed that assessee had not preferred any appeal and deposited the demand within 30 days. Further it was submitted that

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2196/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Purohit, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

search and seizure operation whether oral or documentary, which indicates evasion of taxable income can be treated as “incriminating material” and further contended that voluntary admission of the assessee qua undisclosed income is also “incriminating material” as has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2195/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Purohit, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

search and seizure operation whether oral or documentary, which indicates evasion of taxable income can be treated as “incriminating material” and further contended that voluntary admission of the assessee qua undisclosed income is also “incriminating material” as has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2194/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Purohit, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

search and seizure operation whether oral or documentary, which indicates evasion of taxable income can be treated as “incriminating material” and further contended that voluntary admission of the assessee qua undisclosed income is also “incriminating material” as has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2193/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Purohit, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

search and seizure operation whether oral or documentary, which indicates evasion of taxable income can be treated as “incriminating material” and further contended that voluntary admission of the assessee qua undisclosed income is also “incriminating material” as has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)., Visakhapatnam vs. Varun Ogili, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021("नधा"रणवष"/Asst. Year:2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Varun Ogili, Tax (International Taxation), Nellore. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aakpo 5012 C C.O. No. 4/Viz/2022 (Inआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Varun Ogili, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Nellore. Income Tax (International Pan: Aakpo 5012 C Taxation), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna Kota ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 04/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna KotaFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

therefore pleaded that the Ld. CIT (A) has granted additional relief of Rs.86,620/- as against the voluntary admission made by the assessee. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. AO be upheld. Per contra, the Ld. AR relied on the order ... computed the interest on the loans advanced by the assessee @ 12% . However the Ld CIT(A) has failed to consider the voluntary admission of interest for Rs 10,42,193/-. We also find from the order of the Ld AO in Page No 7 the assessee has admitted interest voluntarily

Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir-1, Rajkot vs. Rajeshkumar Govindbhai Patel, Rajkot

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 26/RJT/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 153A

that the issue on hand is basically two-fold. First is the nature of addition per se based on the information, and second the voluntary admission of unaccounted income made by the appellant during the course of search. The AO treated both as interconnected and intermingled the issues while making

Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir-1, Rajkot vs. Rajeshkumar Govindbhai Patel, Rajkot

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 25/RJT/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 153A

that the issue on hand is basically two-fold. First is the nature of addition per se based on the information, and second the voluntary admission of unaccounted income made by the appellant during the course of search. The AO treated both as interconnected and intermingled the issues while making

M/S. Slv Housing Development Corporation, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 19/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V Chavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Before the CIT(A) the assessee contended that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated without recording of satisfaction and that the voluntary admission of wrong claim of deduction by the assessee would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c). The reason