INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 132(4)

Search and seizure - Statement recorded under section 132(4) - Evidentiary value -

AO based on statement given by Kokani family members under section 132(4) during course of search and seizure proceedings at their premises made addition in assessee's hands towards on-money payment made by assessee for purchase of property. Assessee challenged this on the ground of no corroborative material. Held: Material gathered in the assessment proceedings of one person is not legal evidence in the assessment of another person. Assessment of each person is separate and distinct and addition is to be made only on the basis of independent corroborative evidence brought on record. Mere statement given by the vendors of the land under section 132(4) has no evidentiary value without there being incriminating material suggesting payment of any on-money found during the course of search and seizure action at the premises of assessee. Therefore, addition made merely based on statement of third parties recorded under section 132(4) without bringing on record any corroborative evidence was not sustainable.

Relied:P.V. Kalyanasundaram, (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1498 (SC), CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull, (1964) 53 ITR 574 (SC) : 1964 TaxPub(DT) 310 (SC), N.S. Choodamani v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 676 (Kerala) : 1959 TaxPub(DT) 45 (Ker-HC), M.M. Ipoh & Ors. v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 106 (SC) : 1968 TaxPub(DT) 212 (SC) and Pr. CIT v. Kunvarji Commodities Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 432 ITR 150 (Guj) : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1607 (Guj-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2014-15

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 132

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT