9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall not have any evidentiary value and solely based on the said statement given by one of the partners of the firm, the question of reopening cannot be done. Further, after taking note of the decision in the case of Dr.S.C.Gupta [ 1999 (11) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] the Court held that the power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorities only under Section 132(4) of the Act in the course of any search or seizure and Section 133A does not empower any income-tax officer to examine any person on oath. Thus here is absolutely no basis for reopening of the assessment. That apart, though the second respondent seeks to bring out a case of underestimation in the cost of construction by referring to the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment is a statement, which is said to have been recorded from one of the partners of the firm by name, Shri S.Balasubramanian, during the course of survey conducted in the business premises of the petitioner on 06.03.2002. The respondent would state that in the said statement, the partner stated that there is an understatement of the cost of construction of a commercial building, which was put up by the petitioner during the assessment year 1999-2000 and such statement was recorded in the course of survey under Section 133A of the Act and this statement was also confirmed by the petitioner's partner and therefore, the second respondent has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This judgment was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. S.Khader Khan Son reported in [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad). Among other things, the Court held that the statement recorded during the course of survey action under Section 133A of the Act shall not have any evidentiary value and solely based on the said statement given by one of the partners of the firm, the question of reopening cannot be done. Further, after taking note of the decision in the case of Dr.S.C.Gupta (supra), the Court held that the power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorities only under Section 132(4) of the Act in the course of any search or seizure and Section 133A does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt error. The submission of the revenue in this regard is acceptable. 7.However, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no basis for reopening of the assessment. That apart, though the second respondent seeks to bring out a case of underestimation in the cost of construction by referring to the statement of the partner, the second respondent himself called for a valuation report from the Public Works Department and I find that the cost of the construction as disclosed in the return for the assessment year 1999-2000 and the valuation, which was done by the Public Works Department officials in the year 2003 has only marginal difference and the variation appears to be around Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, on his own showing, the second respondent wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
