ITO vs. Vandana Properties (ITAT Mumbai)

DATE: December 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
S. 133A: A statement given u/s 133A(iii) is not on oath and can be retracted. Even a statement on oath does not create any estoppel and can be retracted

On the issue whether the statement on oath u/s 133A is binding and cannot be retracted, we have to make a categorical observation, here that statement given u/s 133A is not on oath. Section 133A(iii) observes, “record a statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act”. Therefore the statement made by the managing partner to not to include the amount of Rs. 95,00,000/- in the claim of deduction would have no relevance, first on the fact that the statement was made u/s 133A. Secondly, even if the statement was recorded on oath, the assessee has prerogative to change his/its stand, after taking into consideration the facts that emerge from the papers seized or impounded. The law does not bar or create any type of estoppel, to retract from the statement, even if given on oath, if the facts are otherwise.

One comment on “ITO vs. Vandana Properties (ITAT Mumbai)
  1. true. sec 133 is not some thing like an oath before the honorable courts or constitutional courts, so the decision of ITAT is okay

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading