Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.95 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 292C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs President Industries on 20 April, 1999
In this regard, he relied
upon the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of
Sri Sri Estates, Hyderabad vs., ACIT, Central-2(3), Hyderabad in
ITA.No.2242 to 2245/Hyd/2017 and ITA.Nos.228 to
230/Hyd./2018, Order dated 25.07.2018 and the decision of
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT(A) vs. President
Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.).
Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 22 September, 1971
95. We further note that, although, an admission in a
statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act is as good as
a piece of evidence, but, it is not a conclusive evidence and in
81
ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025,
ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And
C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025
order to make an addition, it is essential for the Assessing
Officer to bring on record, corroborate evidence to substantiate
the statement recorded from any person and this legal principle
is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs., State of Kerala
And Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC).
Sarwan Singh vs The State Of Punjab(With Connected ... on 10 April, 1957
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sarwan Singh vs., State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637
held that, "a confession may be treated as voluntary however that
by itself may not be suffice. For the confession to be accepted as
valid evidence, it is necessary to establish that, the confession is
true". In the present case, going by the evidence on record, the
statement recorded from the assessee cannot be considered as
good evidence. Further, it is very clear from the statement
recorded from the Managing Director of the assessee company
that, admission given on this account is voluntary. Therefore, in
our considered view, on the basis of voluntary admission, further
addition cannot be made without any evidence to support the
said addition. The learned CIT(A) without considering the
relevant facts, has simply sustained the addition made by the
Assessing Officer. Thus, we set-aside the Order of the learned
CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete addition made
towards unexplained investment in money lending business for
Rs. 6.91 crores.