The High Court allowed the Department’s appeal against the order of the Tribunal upholding the deletion of the addition of surrendered income, holding that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and later confirmed in the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, could not be discarded summarily in a cryptic manner simply observing that the assessee had retracted them because such retraction ought to have been generally made within a reasonable time or by filing a complaint to superior authorities or otherwise brought to the notice of the higher officials by filing a duly sworn affidavit or statement supported by convincing evidence, that such retraction was required to be made as soon as possible or immediately after the statement of the assessee was recorded, that the time when such retraction was made assumed significance which in this case was after almost eight months. On a petition for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, dismissing the petition, no case was made out to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.(AY.2013-14)
Roshan Lal Sanchiti v. PCIT (2023) 452 ITR 229/ 292 Taxman 69 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Roshan Lal Sanchiti (2023) 150 taxmann.com 227 (Raj)(HC)(D.B. I.TA. No. 47 of 2018 dt. 30-10-2018 (Raj)(HC), affirmed.
S. 132(4) : Search and seizure-Statement on oath-Income from undisclosed sources-Income surrendered during search-Retraction of statement after eight months-Statement cannot be discarded. [S. 131, 132, Art. 136]