9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y enables the authority to record any statement of any person, which may be useful, but does not authorise for taking any sworn statement. On the other hand, such power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorized officer u/s. 132(4) of the I.T Act, 1961. The statement recorded by an officer on oath will be used as evidence in any proceeding, whereas statement recorded u/s. 133A has not given any evidentiary value because it was recorded by the authority, which has not been empowered to administer the oath to the assessee and take sworn statement. We are of the view that the 1st appellate authority has not committed any error while deleting the addition. The ld.DR was also unable to point out any other corrobor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On appeal the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- 6. In this case, the appellant has filed his return along with regular books of accounts which are duly audited by an auditor u/s. 44AB of the Act and the entries therein are duly supported by evidence. The AO while framing the assessment was satisfied with the books of the appellant and did not even pass any adverse remarks on the same. There being no evidence, apart from the specious admission of disclosure obtained during survey, the impugned addition made to his total income was in disregard of law. Therefore, taking into consideration the factual as well as the legal position on the issue, I find no justification to sustain the impugned addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan Son (supra) has considered the evidentiary value of the statement recorded during the survey and held that on the basis of the statement addition cannot be made. Similarly, the ITAT Delhi in the case of Mahesh Ohri (supra) has also considered this aspect and after putting reliance upon the judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews Sons Vs. CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) has held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any person, which may be useful for, or relevant to any proceeding under the Act. This section only enables the authority to record any statement of any person, which may be useful, but does not authorise for taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
