Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 22 September, 1960
In the case of Homi Jehangir Gheesta Vs. CIT (Supra) the issue was as to
whether where circumstances of rejection of explanation of assessee are such
that only proper inference is that receipt must be treated as income in the hands
of the assessee, there is no reason why assessing authority should not draw
such an inference, it being an inference of fact and not of law. he question has
been answered in affirmative. In the present case before us we have also
concentrated on the facts and circumstances of the case to see as to whether it
leads to justifying the addition made at Rs.12.50 crores.
Section 158 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Bachittar Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 3 January, 1983
We find substance in the above contention of
the ld. AR so far as credibility and reliability of the statements subsequently
made by Sh. Harish Singla in concern. It is an establish proposition of law that
statements made u/s 132 (4) on oath during the course of search has got
evidentiary value and for retracting from such statements there must be
sufficient reason like undue influence, freight, duress to be established by such
person and that such retraction should be within reasonable time. No such fact
has been brought on record in the present case by Sh. Harish Singla to deviate
from his earlier statements recorded u/s 132 (4) of the Act. The Hon'ble Punjab
and Haryana High Court in the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (Supra) relied
upon by the ld. AR, has been pleased to hold that the Tribunal was justified in
holding that retraction made after 2 months was not permissible and voluntary
statements recorded in the presence of family members was an important)
material which could be acted upon. In that case the AO made addition on the
basis of statements recorded during the course of survey. The addition was in
respect of investment not recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee later
on retracted from his earlier statements by taking stand that he had agriculture
income to that effect investment was from that source.
1