The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's judgment deleting an addition of Rs 3.41 crores made on the basis of a retracted statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act. The court dismissed the appeal holding that the Tribunal correctly deleted the addition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 14/2021
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, District Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Vishnu Prakash R. Pungalia, P No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, District Jodhpur
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. K.K. Bissa. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vikas Balia and Mr. Priyanshu Arora. |
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Order
04/01/2022
This appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 01.02.2021.
The sole issue argued before us by the counsel for the Revenue pertains to deletion of a sum of Rs.3.41 crores, which was added by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The record would suggest that during the course of survey operation, statement of partner of the Firm was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) in which he seems to have admitted unaccounted receipts. On the basis of this statement, the Assessing Officer had made the addition in the assessment proceedings. CIT(A) and Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition on the ground that as per settled law, no addition can be made solely on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act since such statements is not recorded on
(2 of 2)
[ITA-14/2021]
oath. It is also noticed that such statement was later on retracted. It would thus emerge that the Assessing Officer had relied solely on a retracted statement, which was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly deleted the addition and no question of law arises. The income-tax appeal is dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
30-a.asopa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is not recorded on oath and has been retracted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, District Jodhpur
M/s Vishnu Prakash R. Pungalia
Akil Kureshi
Rameshwar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
