https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253194 A statement recorded long after a search could not be treated as a valid Section 132(4) statement, especially when it was not shown to be voluntary and was later retracted; it therefore lacked evidentiary value for sustaining the assessment. A block assessment could not rest solely on a mismatch between RG-1 and DRPR registers, because no independent material showed suppression of sales or accrual of income. Mere production-record discrepancy was insufficient to infer undisclosed income, and proceedings under Chapter XIV-B required a firm factual foundation rather than surmise. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2015 12:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253194 A statement recorded long after a search could not be treated as a valid Section 132(4) statement, especially when it was not shown to be voluntary and was later retracted; it therefore lacked evidentiary value for sustaining the assessment. A block assessment could not rest solely on a mismatch between RG-1 and DRPR registers, because no independent material showed suppression of sales or accrual of income. Mere production-record discrepancy was insufficient to infer undisclosed income, and proceedings under Chapter XIV-B required a firm factual foundation rather than surmise. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253194