← All Phrases

“statement during survey”

Search & SeizureSection 133ASection 133A35 judgments

The decision most relied on for statement during survey is CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (352 ITR 480), cited in 581 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on statement during survey

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.

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT
263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court
266
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works
328 ITR 384 · 2010 · High Court
113
citing judgments

Statements recorded and materials collected during a survey under Section 133A are not made on oath, unlike those under Section 132(4), and thus are not conclusive evidence; an income addition cannot be made solely based on such statements.

Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (
373 ITR 9 · 2015 · High Court
86
citing judgments

Additions made for amounts surrendered during a search or survey operation are justified if the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory and bona fide explanation for the surrendered amount or to substantiate its retraction.

Bachittar Singh v. CIT
328 ITR 400 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

A statement recorded under section 133A, though not possessing the same evidentiary value as a sworn statement under section 132(4), cannot be considered irrelevant material and can be relied upon, especially when the assessee fails to produce regular books of account.

Bansal v. ACIT
63 Taxmann.com 199 · 2015 · ITAT
59
citing judgments

A statement made or income surrendered during search or survey proceedings, especially if later retracted, requires corroborating evidence to form the basis of an assessment, aligning with CBDT instructions to focus on evidence collection rather than confessions.

CIT v. P. Balasubramanian
354 ITR 116 · 2013 · High Court
59
citing judgments

An addition to income can be made based on an assessee's statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A only if it is substantiated by relevant supporting material and not solely on the statement itself.

Judgments citing statement during survey

Aapna Marble, G T Road Bhucho Kalan vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II Bathinda

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

ITA 639/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

disclosure statement" ASSTT CIT V SMT. USHA RANI TALLA (2010) 6 ITR (TRB) 37 (DEL) "No addition merely on the basis of the statement during survey. No addition can be made under section 698 merely on the basis of statement during survey in respect of renovation of office show room

Saroj Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 367/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.367/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Saroj Gupta Acit (Central Circle) M/S Aakash Hospital & Diagnostic बनाम/ Vs. Railway Board Building Main Bazar, Nalagarh (Hp) -174101 The Mall, Shimla (Hp) 171003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahvpg-9358-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 27-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessingofficer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 26-09-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Twin Additions Of Rs.41.94 Lacs & Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133A(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

order is common order for AYs 2013-14 to 2019-20. During appellate proceedings, the assessee relied on judicial precedents to contend that statement during survey would not hold any evidentiary value. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred that there was no incriminating material

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

independent witnesses has overriding effect over the subsequent retraction. 9. Per contra, the ld.counsel for the assessee has contended that except the statement during survey nothing was seized or found. The statement was recorded despite no corroborative material was noticed or gathered or found during survey. He further, submitted that

Anupam, Barnala vs. Income Tax Officer, Barnala

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 442/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 263

other than the business or profession declared by the Assessee. The Assessee was also not confronted by the Revenue in the recording of statement during survey operation and subsequently asked it. However, from the records, it is clear that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee has brought on record that

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

further appeal preferred by the assessee, the High Court, after specifically considering the fact that the surrender was not made in the statement during survey, but was made voluntarily by way of declaration, that too two months after the survey had concluded, held that such declaration cannot be said

DCIT-3(1), Bhopal vs. Manidhari Jewellers, Bhopal

The appeal are allowed

ITA 533/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 04Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 25Section 250Section 253

with the said M/s R.B. Enterprises was Rs.2,34,50,000/-. Further Shri Ankit Soni proprietor of said M/s R.B. Enterprises in his statement during survey proceedings had admitted that these are bogus transactions and had surrendered undisclosed income of Rs.87.85 lakhs. All these showed that the assessee ... assessee with M/s R. B. Enterprises is Rs.2,34,50,000/-. Further Shri Ankit Soni, Prop of M/s R. B. Enterprises in his statement during survey proceedings has admitted that there are bogus transactions which he has highlighted in his statement and surrendered undisclosed income of Rs.87.85 Lac. Therefore

ITO, Ward-3(1), Gaya vs. Shri Gauri Textiles Industries, Gaya

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and corresponding cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…………….………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya…………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] C.O. No.5/Pat/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya ……………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya………….................................……........……....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.08.2020 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Survey Was Conducted On 07.02.2017 In The Case Of The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Engaged In Trading Business Of Cotton Yarn & Hosiery Yarn. During The Survey, It Was Observed That The Assessee Has Made Substantial Deposits In Various Bank Accounts Linked With The Firm. However, The Assessee Disclosed

Section 143(2)

also on record that on the date of survey the stock register which was found was maintained 31.01.2017. Even during the recording of statement during survey in response question no. 13, the appellant had made the above submission regarding stock found. In view of those facts and discussion I find

Penugonda Venkateswara Rao, Tenali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

ITA 222/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.222/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2019-20) Penugonda Venkateswara Rao D.No. 16-3-137 Sri Shanmuka Jewellery Mall Sharoff Bazar, Tenali – 522201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Adkpp6347A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 Income Tax Office Opp. Sai Baba Temple Bose Road, Tenali – 522201 Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) : 19.12.2024 : 28.01.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter “Ld.Pr.Cit"] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063745349(1) Dated 31.03.2024 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Arising Out Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act') Dated 26.09.2021.

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

business premises at Shanmuka Jewelleries, Tenali. During the survey operation excess gold ornaments weighing 2700 grams was found. While recording statement during survey operations assessee offered to disclose additional income amounting to Rs. 85 Lakhs but whereas while filing the regular return of income additional income was disclosed only

G.R.M. Constructions, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1980/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 149Section 250

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The managing partner, Shri R. Ganeshan, in his statement during survey stated that all vouchers relating to labour charges are prepared by site supervisors and some ITA Nos.1973 to 1980/Chny/2024 6-: of the vouchers might have

G.R.M. Constructions, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1979/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 149Section 250

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The managing partner, Shri R. Ganeshan, in his statement during survey stated that all vouchers relating to labour charges are prepared by site supervisors and some ITA Nos.1973 to 1980/Chny/2024 :- 6 -: of the vouchers might have

G.R.M. Constructions, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1978/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 149Section 250

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The managing partner, Shri R. Ganeshan, in his statement during survey stated that all vouchers relating to labour charges are prepared by site supervisors and some ITA Nos.1973 to 1980/Chny/2024 6-: of the vouchers might have

G.R.M. Constructions, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1977/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 149Section 250

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The managing partner, Shri R. Ganeshan, in his statement during survey stated that all vouchers relating to labour charges are prepared by site supervisors and some ITA Nos.1973 to 1980/Chny/2024 6-: of the vouchers might have

G.R.M. Constructions, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1976/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 149Section 250

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The managing partner, Shri R. Ganeshan, in his statement during survey stated that all vouchers relating to labour charges are prepared by site supervisors and some ITA Nos.1973 to 1980/Chny/2024 :- 6 -: of the vouchers might have

G.R.M. Constructions, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1975/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 149Section 250

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The managing partner, Shri R. Ganeshan, in his statement during survey stated that all vouchers relating to labour charges are prepared by site supervisors and some ITA Nos.1973 to 1980/Chny/2024 6-: of the vouchers might have

G.R.M. Constructions, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1974/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 149Section 250

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The managing partner, Shri R. Ganeshan, in his statement during survey stated that all vouchers relating to labour charges are prepared by site supervisors and some ITA Nos.1973 to 1980/Chny/2024 6-: of the vouchers might have

G.R.M. Constructions, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1973/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 149Section 250

survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The managing partner, Shri R. Ganeshan, in his statement during survey stated that all vouchers relating to labour charges are prepared by site supervisors and some ITA Nos.1973 to 1980/Chny/2024 6-: of the vouchers might have

M/S. Atri Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2859/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

sold by it during the year. That, therefore, the disclosure made by the assessee was backed with evidence while that made in a statement during survey was not duly corroborated. In effect, he found the assessee had substantiated the retraction of its surrender from Rs.9.05 crores to Rs.2.97 crores, disclosing

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Atri Developers, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2855/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

sold by it during the year. That, therefore, the disclosure made by the assessee was backed with evidence while that made in a statement during survey was not duly corroborated. In effect, he found the assessee had substantiated the retraction of its surrender from Rs.9.05 crores to Rs.2.97 crores, disclosing

Sh. Lachhman Dass Bansal, Barnala vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 34/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

Circular dated 10.03.2003 of CBDT wherein it is clearly mentioned that no addition should be made merely on the basis of statement during survey and no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income and further mentions that the addition should be made on the basis

Umesh Ramesh Patil, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3017/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Umesh Ramesh Patil, Cit (Appeals), Jai Malhar Builders & Office Of Asstt. Cit Central Developers Kalyan Padgha Vs. Circle 1, Thane-400604. Road, Near Gandhari Bridge Bapgaon, Bhiwandi-421 302. Pan No. Aavpp 4945 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 24BSection 80C

Hence the addition made by the Hence the addition made by the Assessing officer based on the Assessing officer based on the sworn statement during survey is not as per the sworn statement during survey is not as per the 5. On the facts and in the circumstances