https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293027 A later letter sent by a partner could not be treated as a statement under section 132(4) because it was not recorded on oath by the authorised officer during search, was not made in the prescribed manner, and did not amount to an unconditional disclosure. The Assessing Officer was therefore required to examine the revised return on its own merits instead of rejecting it solely on that letter. The Indian Evidence Act did not assist the revenue, as the letter was a conditional communication rather than an unequivocal admission and the matter was not a criminal proceeding. The court held the reliance on the letter and the Evidence Act was misplaced. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:35:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293027 A later letter sent by a partner could not be treated as a statement under section 132(4) because it was not recorded on oath by the authorised officer during search, was not made in the prescribed manner, and did not amount to an unconditional disclosure. The Assessing Officer was therefore required to examine the revised return on its own merits instead of rejecting it solely on that letter. The Indian Evidence Act did not assist the revenue, as the letter was a conditional communication rather than an unequivocal admission and the matter was not a criminal proceeding. The court held the reliance on the letter and the Evidence Act was misplaced. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293027