9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, qua this aspect, could not be sustained. As observed in S. Khader Khan Son s case [ 2013 (6) TMI 305 - SC ORDER] , there is a qualitative difference between the statement recorded under Section 133A and Section 132(4) of the Act. The statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value, since the officer concerned is not authorized to administer oath and record a sworn statement. This is in contradiction with the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, which is recorded on oath by an officer who is vested with necessary powers. No corroborative evidence was found to support the addition, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, in the course of the survey, the officers of the appellant/revenue recorded the statement of the directors of the respondent/assessee. 6. One of the directors, i.e., Mr Krishan Kumar, gave a statement which led to addition of Rs. 10 crores to the taxable income of the respondent/assessee. 6.1 The record shows that this statement was taken on oath. 7. The record also discloses that it is this statement, as noticed above, sans any corroborative evidence, which forms the basis of the addition. 8. Mr Akshat Singh, learned standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that the statement disclosed that consideration was received by the respondent/assessee in cash and, therefore, was rightly added to the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not furnished to the respondent/assessee, the AO could not have relied upon the same. 16. In sum, it is the submission of Mr Sinha that the addition cannot be sustained, in view of the fact that it is based solely on the statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act [in short, Act ], which is not supported by any corroborative material. 16.1 In support of this submission, Mr Sinha has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.). 17. Mr Sinha says that the said judgment was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed after hearing the opposing sides. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
