{"id":13407,"date":"2020-10-30T10:10:51","date_gmt":"2020-10-30T10:10:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-s-khader-khan-son-2012-210-taxman-248-79-dtr-184-254-ctr-228-2013-352-itr-480-sc\/"},"modified":"2020-10-30T10:10:51","modified_gmt":"2020-10-30T10:10:51","slug":"cit-v-s-khader-khan-son-2012-210-taxman-248-79-dtr-184-254-ctr-228-2013-352-itr-480-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-s-khader-khan-son-2012-210-taxman-248-79-dtr-184-254-ctr-228-2013-352-itr-480-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 210 Taxman 248\/79 DTR 184\/254 CTR 228\/ (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Facts<\/h3>\n

The assessee filed its return of\u00a0 income on\u00a0 29.10.2001 disclosing an\u00a0 income\u00a0\u00a0 of Rs.12,640. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the \u2018Act\u2019) on 27.8.2002 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.8.2002\u00a0\u00a0 and served on the assessee on 24.9.2002. In the instant case, a survey action was conducted under section 133A of the Act on 24.7.2001 in the premises of the assessee and one of the partners of the firm, by name Asif Khan, in his sworn statement offered an additional income of Rs.20,00,000 for the assessment year 2001-02 and Rs.30,00,000 for the assessment year 2002-03. However, the said statement was retracted by the assessee through its letter dated 3.8.2001 stating\u00a0 that the partner Asif Khan, from whom a statement was recorded during the survey operation under section 133A, was new to the management and he could not answer to the enquiries made and as such, he agreed to an ad hoc <\/em>addition, which could never be achieved by the business owing to the severe competition and to the legislation by the Government prohibiting smoking in public places.\u00a0\u00a0 The assessee, thus, contended that the statement of Asif Khan recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value. It was specifically contended that the power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorities\u00a0\u00a0 only during the course of any search under section 132(4) of the Act and therefore, it was requested that the survey operations would not serve any useful purpose and the sworn statement recorded during the survey should not be given any weightage. The AO came to the conclusion that he\u00a0 had\u00a0 reason to believe that the assessee had evaded production of stated books during the survey action and even after the survey action, as it could be seen from the survey folders. Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion based on the admissions made by\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the assessee, which are directly relatable to the defects noticed during the action under section 133A of the Act, he recomputed the assessment and sought for the balance tax payable by his assessment order dated 30.3.2004. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who, by<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

order dated 30.11.2006, held the issue in favour of the assessee. On appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal holding that there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner, dismissed the Revenue\u2019s appeal. On revenue\u2019s appeal, High court dismissed the same after culling out following striking principles on\u00a0\u00a0 the subject of evidentiary value of survey based statement under section 133A of the Act:<\/p>\n

\u201cFrom the foregoing discussion, the following principles can be culled out:<\/p>\n