← All Phrases

“retracted statement”

Natural JusticeEvidenceEvidence725 judgments

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

Leading authorities on retracted 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 retracted statement

Prashant Prakash Nilawar, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-6(1), Nariman Point Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

ITA 2318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

name, and there is no independent evidence to show that the transactions recorded therein were made for or on behalf of him. The retracted statement of a third party, without any corroboration, cannot form the edifice of an addition. In fact, in Rucha Consultancy LLP v. DCIT (ITA No. 4996/Mum/2024 ... coordinate bench of this Tribunal, dealing with the same witness, held that such retracted statements cannot be the sole basis of addition. The principle squarely applies here. The deletion by the CIT(A) is therefore confirmed. 45. In the absence of any nexus or corroboration, the addition

Manoj Kumar Khandelwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Cir 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 422/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm It(Ss)A No.160/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69

OIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM IT

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3936/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3928/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3228/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3224/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3223/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

statement cannot be treated as binding evidence. The AR placed reliance on an array of judicial precedents to fortify his argument that a retracted statement, standing alone and unsupported by any tangible material, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot form the sole basis of addition. 22. The learned Authorised Representative continued ... jurisprudence, weaving together a formidable chain of precedents that underscored the impermissibility of making additions solely on the strength of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements. He first drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [(2020) 261 Taxman

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 593/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

afterthought to divert the ITAs No.592 & 593/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2007-08 & 2010-11) 6 investigation process. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the assessee on the retracted statement of Shri Rajendra Jain, wherein he submitted that the loans given, inter alia, to the assessee are not accommodation entry transactions, was rejected

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 592/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

search proceedings, and held that it was merely an afterthought to divert the investigation process. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the assessee on the retracted statement of Shri Rajendra Jain, wherein he submitted that the loans given, inter alia, to the assessee are not accommodation entry transactions, was rejected

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

conclusively the facts surrounding the impugned amounts received as share capital/premium. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct as under: (a) the retractions statement filed by the assessee pertaining to Mr. Vinod Kumar Jajoo deserves to be examined and since the assessee has relied on this particular retraction ... Jajoo for cross examination by the Ld. AO. The assessee must do so. (b) Considerable information, apart from the information contained in the retracted statement, is available from the ROC website. The assessee must present details of financials of the share subscribers and also details therein pertaining to bank accounts

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

conclusively the facts surrounding the impugned amounts received as share capital/premium. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct as under: (a) the retractions statement filed by the assessee pertaining to Mr. Vinod Kumar Jajoo deserves to be examined and since the assessee has relied on this particular retraction ... Jajoo for cross examination by the Ld. AO. The assessee must do so. (b) Considerable information, apart from the information contained in the retracted statement, is available from the ROC website. The assessee must present details of financials of the share subscribers and also details therein pertaining to bank accounts

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kalawati Sharma, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalincome Tax Officer, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250Section 69C

said to have been recorded under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal’s view that only the basis of such retracted statement, addition could not be justified without any other material admissible in evidence, warrants no interference as it is not a substantial question

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

amount of Rs.8,78,358 and same was assessed in the hands of the three partners—Relying on the statement of R and the retracted statement of K, AO made addition of Rs. 8,78,358 under s.68 in the hands of assessee also and the same was confirmed

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

same was assessed in the hands of the three partners—Relying on the statement of R and the retracted statement of K, AO made addition of Rs. 8,78,358 under s. 68 in the hands of assessee also and the same was confirmed by CIT(A) and Tribunal

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1536/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250

aforesaid lending entities along with corresponding interest payments without finding any defect in documents and details filed by assessee and merely relying on some retracted statements of the key persons of the assessee. It is also observed that the AO had not made any cross verification with the alleged lending