Section 132(4) statements need careful scrutiny; retracted oath alone cannot sustain undisclosed income inference of Rs 20 lakh

HC held that a statement recorded under s.132(4) is evidence whose reliability depends on surrounding circumstances; a retracted oath cannot by itself support assessment of undisclosed income. The authorities below improperly relied on an assumed admission to fasten liability and failed to explain rejection of the assessee's retraction or why further inquiry into alleged undisclosed income was not made. The HC found the inference of Rs.20 lakhs as undisclosed income unsustainable and directed reappraisal consistent with the principle that s.132(4) statements require careful scrutiny.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of proviso to section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Admissibility of statement on oath recorded under section 132(4) in assessment proceedings.
3. Justification of addition of Rs.20 lakhs based on the admission in the statement under section 132(4).

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the applicability of the proviso to section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court deliberated on whether a statement recorded under section 132(4) would be governed by the provision as it stood on the date of recording or as amended later. The argument centered on the necessity of corroborative evidence to support any admission made in such a statement. Reference was made to a Division Bench judgment emphasizing the requirement of corroborative evidence for assessing undisclosed income based solely on a retracted statement under section 132(4).

2. The second issue addressed the admissibility of a statement recorded under section 132(4) in assessment proceedings. The Revenue contended that allowing retractions without corroborative evidence would enable tax evaders to admit income under duress and later retract. However, the court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence even in cases of retraction. The argument highlighted the importance of evidence to substantiate any admissions made in such statements to avoid arbitrary assessments solely based on self-incriminating statements.

3. The final issue pertained to the justification of adding Rs.20 lakhs to the income based on the admission in the statement under section 132(4). The court examined the circumstances surrounding the recording of the statement and the subsequent retraction by the assessee. It was argued that the authorities failed to provide reasons for rejecting the retraction and did not conduct further inquiries to verify the undisclosed income. The court emphasized the need for a careful examination of statements under section 132(4) and criticized the authorities for drawing conclusions without proper consideration of surrounding circumstances and lack of corroborative evidence.

In conclusion, the court held that the authorities erred in drawing inferences solely based on the admission and subsequent retraction by the assessee without proper examination of the evidence and circumstances. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence to support any admissions made in statements under section 132(4) to ensure fair and justified assessments.

---