TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. Coming to the substantial questions of law relating to admissibility, relevancy and evidentiary value of statement obtained under Section 132(4) this court is of the view that the same are no longer res integra. As per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Banalal Jat Constructions Private Limited [ 2019 (7) TMI 137 - SC ORDER] after referring to the judgment of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd [ 1971 (9) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the opinion that once a statement is recorded, it is open to the assessing officer to rely and proceed on the basis that such statement is correct and represents the true state of affairs and the burden is on the deponent to demonstrate by letting cogent, convincing and material evidence that the statement was incorrect. Therefore, the statement made under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has a strong evidentiary value and is binding on a person, who makes it. As pointed out by the Tribunal that there was no material evidence let in by the appellant to retract the statement made under section 132(4) and the affidavits of his mother-in-law were unreliable as they were interested and self-serving testimonies. We are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted the value of the silver items only at ₹ 5,75,266/- and accounted the sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- to Sakthi Finance at ₹ 1,00,000/-, K.C.Sampathkumar at ₹ 26,000/- and Sri Chinnaraj at ₹ 24,000/- under the HUF status. Since the appellant did not explain the sources with material evidence, the assessing officer rejected the same as an afterthought and passed the order of assessment under section 143(3) levying tax on the unexplained income/ investment to the tune of ₹ 14,15,769/-. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the assessment order, primarily on the ground that the differences noticed in the cash balance as well as gold jewellery and silver articles were explained by the appellant and in support of the same, an affidavit of the appellant's mother-in-law by name Amsa Boi was also filed. 2.4 Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the Revenue carried the matter by way of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the said appeal. Therefore, this Tax Case Appeal by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found during the course of search that the jewelleries belong to the appellant's wife and the affidavit filed by the appellant from his mother-in-law was a self-serving document. Therefore, no credence can be given to this document, since it is not supported by any corroborative evidence. It was further observed that the statement of the appellant was not given by any force nor on any mistaken fact and no evidence was let in by the appellant to rebut the statement recorded under Section 132(4). The appellant should produce cogent evidence and mere assertion was inadequate to displace the strong evidentiary value attached to a statement recorded under section 132(4) of Income Tax Act,1961. Similarly, regarding son's jewellery, the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 132(4) did not produce anything, but he later stated that his son's jewellery was kept in business and there was no record to substantiate the same. Therefore, credit cannot be given. Regarding HUF jewellery, the seized material did not reflect the transfer of HUF jewellery to the business of the appellant. The presumption under Section 132(4A) stands against the appellant. It should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnected with any proceeding under the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or under this Act. (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed [1] that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that the statement recorded on oath carries a significant evidentiary value, which ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by a strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definite evidence to come to the conclusion that indicating that there was an element of compulsion for appellant to make such statement. e. However, a bald assertion to this effect at much belated stage cannot be accepted. Applying the aforesaid legal proposition herein, we are of the opinion that once a statement is recorded, it is open to the assessing officer to rely and proceed on the basis that such statement is correct and represents the true state of affairs and the burden is on the deponent to demonstrate by letting cogent, convincing and material evidence that the statement was incorrect. Therefore, the statement made under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has a strong evidentiary value and is binding on a person, who makes it. 8.Pertinently, the Tribunal after recording the explanations, affidavit and other documents filed by the appellant in support of his case, found that the same w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
