← All Phrases

“evidentiary value”

Natural JusticeEvidenceEvidence5,387 judgments

The decision most relied on for evidentiary value is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713), cited in 962 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on evidentiary value

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

Adverse material or evidence collected by the Assessing Officer behind the assessee's back, without providing it to the assessee or affording an opportunity for cross-examination, has no evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon to make additions.

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.

Society v. UOI
394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court
493
citing judgments

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

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.

CBI v. V.C. Shukla
3 SCC 410 · 1998 · Supreme Court
442
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.

Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT
37 ITR 151 · 1959 · Supreme Court
372
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be made based solely on suspicion, surmises, or conjectures. The income tax department requires evidence or material to justify an addition, as suspicion, however strong, does not constitute proof.

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)
294 ITR 49 · 2007 · Supreme Court
299
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

Judgments citing evidentiary value

Green Twig Estate Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3419/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Green Twig Estate Management Ito-2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) Vs. M.K. Road, (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Mumbai-400020. Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaecg 1617 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajkumar Singh Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

submitted as proof of tenancy purchase for Rs. submitted as proof of tenancy purchase for Rs. 2,99,40,000/- has no evidentiary value. The AO has stated that the no evidentiary value. The AO has stated that the said document does not bear any signature/ confirmation of the said ... produced would not find any evidentiary greement even if produced would not find any evidentiary greement even if produced would not find any evidentiary value. 7.12 The appellant has heavily relied upon two "Declaration", i.e. (i) 7.12 The appellant has heavily relied upon two "Declaration", i.e. (i) 7.12 The appellant

Green Twig Estate Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3418/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Green Twig Estate Management Ito-2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) Vs. M.K. Road, (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Mumbai-400020. Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaecg 1617 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajkumar Singh Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

submitted as proof of tenancy purchase for Rs. submitted as proof of tenancy purchase for Rs. 2,99,40,000/- has no evidentiary value. The AO has stated that the no evidentiary value. The AO has stated that the said document does not bear any signature/ confirmation of the said ... produced would not find any evidentiary greement even if produced would not find any evidentiary greement even if produced would not find any evidentiary value. 7.12 The appellant has heavily relied upon two "Declaration", i.e. (i) 7.12 The appellant has heavily relied upon two "Declaration", i.e. (i) 7.12 The appellant

Sri Prodyut Banerjee, Krishnagar vs. I.T.O., Ward-41(2), Nadia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/KOL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Sri Prodyut Banerjee Ito, Ward-41(2), Nadia C/O. Partha Sarathi Gupta, Advocate, 100, Vs. Bank Lane, Hatar Para, P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia, Pin-741101. [Pan: Ahppb 3698 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K.M. Roy, Advocate & Shri Shri P.S. Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Acit Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Revised & Additional Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Was Not At All Justified In Rejecting The Additional/Specific Grounds Taken At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal Case. Ii. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Not At All Justified In Confirming The Addition Of The Whole Of Rs. 55,095/- & Rs. 83,427/- Respectively Under The Alleged Discrepancies In Stock & Sales On The Ground That The Discrepancy Has Been Arrived At After Issue Of Show Cause Notice To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, Advocate & Shri Shri P.S. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, ACIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Khan Son reported in (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein it has been held that the statement of the assessee in survey has no evidentiary value until and unless there is a corroborating material brought on record by the Investigation Team and thus statement during the survey cannot be basis

DCIT CC-7(2), Mumbaia vs. M/S. Dadashree Remedies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2184/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68

basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act by ignoring the fact that the statement recorded under the oath do have evidentiary value. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to discuss the merits ... assessee company and, therefore, it was not expected that he will be aware of the transactions of the company and his statement has no evidentiary value. 6.2.16. On careful perusal of the facts, it is evident that even if retraction of Shri Thakkar is not taken into account

DCIT Cent. Cir.1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education & Sports Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1890/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1880/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1879/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1878/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1877/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1876/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1869/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cir1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education and Sports Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1865/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cent. Cir1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education & Sports Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1864/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Education & Sports Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1816/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(40, Mumbai vs. Podar Education and Sports Trusts, Bengaluru

Accordingly, all 11 appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

statements of the persons, which have been subsequently retracted by them post search. iii. statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act have no evidentiary value and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons ... course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded by the learned Assessing Officer reproduced shows that there is any evidence with respect

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7090/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

Appeals 10 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) acceptable. The A.O observed that a statement recorded u/s 132(4) had evidentiary value and it cannot be retracted without disproving it. 7. The assessee was asked to show as to why the purchases made from the said parties ... account of threat coercion, or undue influence. The subsequent affidavits or retraction supposed to have been made by the accountant carry no evidentiary value because there can be no doubt that they must have been made under the coercion, threat or undue influence of the assessee who is the employer

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7089/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

Appeals 10 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) acceptable. The A.O observed that a statement recorded u/s 132(4) had evidentiary value and it cannot be retracted without disproving it. 7. The assessee was asked to show as to why the purchases made from the said parties ... account of threat coercion, or undue influence. The subsequent affidavits or retraction supposed to have been made by the accountant carry no evidentiary value because there can be no doubt that they must have been made under the coercion, threat or undue influence of the assessee who is the employer

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-61(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7088/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

Appeals 10 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) acceptable. The A.O observed that a statement recorded u/s 132(4) had evidentiary value and it cannot be retracted without disproving it. 7. The assessee was asked to show as to why the purchases made from the said parties ... account of threat coercion, or undue influence. The subsequent affidavits or retraction supposed to have been made by the accountant carry no evidentiary value because there can be no doubt that they must have been made under the coercion, threat or undue influence of the assessee who is the employer

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6779/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

Appeals 10 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) acceptable. The A.O observed that a statement recorded u/s 132(4) had evidentiary value and it cannot be retracted without disproving it. 7. The assessee was asked to show as to why the purchases made from the said parties ... account of threat coercion, or undue influence. The subsequent affidavits or retraction supposed to have been made by the accountant carry no evidentiary value because there can be no doubt that they must have been made under the coercion, threat or undue influence of the assessee who is the employer

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6778/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

Appeals 10 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) acceptable. The A.O observed that a statement recorded u/s 132(4) had evidentiary value and it cannot be retracted without disproving it. 7. The assessee was asked to show as to why the purchases made from the said parties ... account of threat coercion, or undue influence. The subsequent affidavits or retraction supposed to have been made by the accountant carry no evidentiary value because there can be no doubt that they must have been made under the coercion, threat or undue influence of the assessee who is the employer