Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)Section 69B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Addl Cit Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai on 12 April, 2017
22.2. The learned Authorized Representative continued his submissions with a
meticulous reference to 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 358 (Bom)], where the Court
had categorically held that a statement recorded during search cannot be relied
upon as conclusive evidence unless supported by independent material. In that
case, as in the present one, the Assessing Officer had based additions merely on
the confession of a third party without any corroboration, which was later
retracted. The High Court, affirming the Appellate Tribunal, ruled that when a
statement is retracted and no other evidence is adduced, such a statement
cannot, by itself, justify the addition. The learned counsel submitted that the ratio
of this judgment was directly applicable to the present facts, where the Assessing
Officer, resting solely on the statements of TNS, had proceeded to frame the
assessment without any verification or corroboration from the alleged payers or
any independent third-party evidence.
Shree Swami Samarth Trading Co. P. Ltd, ... vs Cit (A)-13, Mumbai on 31 May, 2017
23. The learned AR next placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Jharkhand High Court in Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [(2012) 214
Taxman 262 (Jharkhand)], wherein it was held that though a statement
recorded under section 132(4) constitutes evidence, its reliability and probative
worth depend on the surrounding circumstances and corroboration. The Court
observed that a bald statement, made without contemporaneous recovery of cash
14
ITA Nos. 3233, 3232 & 3229/Mum/2025
Govind Corporation
AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15
or assets and later retracted, could not be used to fasten liability. Drawing a
parallel, the learned counsel emphasised that in the assessee's case, no
incriminating cash or valuables had been discovered in the course of search; yet,
the Assessing Officer had proceeded as though the excel sheet were self-proving
instruments of truth. Such an approach, he argued, stood condemned by judicial
authority.
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998
In support of this proposition, the learned AR drew strength from the
celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of
Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 247-256 of
1998], wherein it was held that loose sheets or diaries, not being books of
account regularly kept in the course of business, are not admissible evidence
under section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court observed that entries
made by one person in such documents, unless corroborated by independent
evidence, cannot fasten liability on another. This, the AR submitted, was directly
applicable to the present case, where the Assessing Officer sought to tax the
assessee on the strength of the personal notings of PDG, without establishing
authorship, authenticity, or relevance.