← 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

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. M/S. M.D. Infra Developers, Surat

In the result, Assessee’s appeal, in ITA No

ITA 3094/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3058 To 3059/Ahd/2016 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3085/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3093 To 3094/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Surat. 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mitish S. Modi, C.A & Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 69B

authorized officer considering the principal of natural justice allowed Shri Naresh Talaviya to consult the other partners. All of them after appreciation of the evidentiary value of the seized material and discussion, made the disclosure under consideration. Further, the Shri Naresh Talaviya has stated that he was not given opportunity ... issue. The predominant characteristic of an admission, which is a type of evidence, consists of its binding character. Thus, an admission is of evidentiary value of only to the extent that its maker has personal knowledge of the matters admitted to. It is immaterial as to whom or before whom

M/S. M.D.Infra Developers, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, Assessee’s appeal, in ITA No

ITA 3085/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3058 To 3059/Ahd/2016 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3085/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3093 To 3094/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Surat. 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mitish S. Modi, C.A & Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 69B

authorized officer considering the principal of natural justice allowed Shri Naresh Talaviya to consult the other partners. All of them after appreciation of the evidentiary value of the seized material and discussion, made the disclosure under consideration. Further, the Shri Naresh Talaviya has stated that he was not given opportunity ... issue. The predominant characteristic of an admission, which is a type of evidence, consists of its binding character. Thus, an admission is of evidentiary value of only to the extent that its maker has personal knowledge of the matters admitted to. It is immaterial as to whom or before whom

M/S. M.D.Infra Developers, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, Assessee’s appeal, in ITA No

ITA 3059/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3058 To 3059/Ahd/2016 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3085/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3093 To 3094/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Surat. 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mitish S. Modi, C.A & Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 69B

authorized officer considering the principal of natural justice allowed Shri Naresh Talaviya to consult the other partners. All of them after appreciation of the evidentiary value of the seized material and discussion, made the disclosure under consideration. Further, the Shri Naresh Talaviya has stated that he was not given opportunity ... issue. The predominant characteristic of an admission, which is a type of evidence, consists of its binding character. Thus, an admission is of evidentiary value of only to the extent that its maker has personal knowledge of the matters admitted to. It is immaterial as to whom or before whom

Girish B. Chaudhari, L/H. of Late Shri Bhagwat N Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1131/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 1131/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Girish Chaudhari, The I.T.O. L/H Of Bhagwat Chaudari, Vs (Central)-1, 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar, Nashik. Yawal Road, Bhusawal, Jalgaon-425201. Pan No. Aalpc 0512 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Shri Devendra P Kulkarni– Ars Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune, Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-12/825,826,827,828/2014-15 Dated 20/03/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition On Account Of Deemed Rental Of Rs. 3,09,357/- U/S 23(4) Of The Act. 1.1 The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Said Addition Of Rs. 3,09,357/- Was Not Justified Since No Incriminating Evidence Was Found Relating To This Issue In The Course Of Search & Hence, The Said Addition Ought To Have Been Deleted. 1.2 The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Various Properties In Respect Of Which The Deemed Rental Income Was Being Taxed Were Used For The Business Purposes By The Appellant & Therefore, There Was No Reason To Tax Deemed Rental Income U/S 23(4) Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 5,229/- On Account Of Undisclosed Rental Income Received By The Appellant

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 23(4)

unexplained income.” 12.2 The assessee in his submissions filed on 08.01.2014 submitted as under: “Rough scribbled / jotting miscellaneous noting document. Therefore this has no evidentiary value.” 12.3 The assessee’s above submissions have been perused. These notings are like the notings in the diaries seized as per Annexure

Rishi Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4846/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4845/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 4846/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Rishi Bansal, Vs Dcit, 132, Doon Palm City, Central Circle, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akvpb7754R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Dehradun Dated 31.03.2016. 2. In Ita No. 4845/Del/2016, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Impugned Proceeding Initiated U/S 153A & Passing The Impugned Order Under That Section Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction & Addition Are Also Made Without Any Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. That Having Regard To The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Which Was Made By The Ao Only On The Basis Of Alleged Statement Which Has Even Being Retracted On 09.07.2012 By The Assessee. Thus The Addition Is Not Sustainable. 3. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.“

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

recorded, totally different considerations altogether, ensue. The situation resembles the one, which arises on retraction from the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The evidentiary value of a retracted statement becomes diluted and it looses the strength, to stand on its own. Once the statement is retracted, the Assessing Authority

Rishi Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4845/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4845/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 4846/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Rishi Bansal, Vs Dcit, 132, Doon Palm City, Central Circle, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akvpb7754R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Dehradun Dated 31.03.2016. 2. In Ita No. 4845/Del/2016, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Impugned Proceeding Initiated U/S 153A & Passing The Impugned Order Under That Section Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction & Addition Are Also Made Without Any Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. That Having Regard To The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Which Was Made By The Ao Only On The Basis Of Alleged Statement Which Has Even Being Retracted On 09.07.2012 By The Assessee. Thus The Addition Is Not Sustainable. 3. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.“

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

recorded, totally different considerations altogether, ensue. The situation resembles the one, which arises on retraction from the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The evidentiary value of a retracted statement becomes diluted and it looses the strength, to stand on its own. Once the statement is retracted, the Assessing Authority

Apurva Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 8(2) (Erstwhile ACIT, Cent. Cir. - 45), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 720/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment by treating the amount ... support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence of common pool as advanced

Kishore Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5469/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment by treating the amount ... support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence of common pool as advanced

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5468/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment by treating the amount ... support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence of common pool as advanced

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5467/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment by treating the amount ... support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence of common pool as advanced

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5466/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

were facts in case of Arun Kala vs ACIT 17 SOT 15(JP) 5. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. The appellant surrendered income before the AO for which A did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed assessment by treating the amount ... support the contention of the appellant must result in dismissing the claim of telescoping. Admission made in statement under section 132(4) has great evidentiary value. Members of Avarsekar family have at no point of time brought to the notice of the Department the existence of common pool as advanced

Bini Builders P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1321/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle-7(3) 203-204, Raigad Darshan, Jp Room No.655, Aayakar Vs. Road, Andheri West, Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb3447R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.05.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceeding Under Section 147. A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & Creating Reason To Believe For Escaped Assessment U/S. 147 As There Was No Failure On Part Of Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly Fact.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 68

retracted within a span of 7 days. It is settled law that statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same are backed by credible evidences. This position has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... retracted within a span of 7 days. It is settled law that statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same are backed by credible evidences. This position has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case