https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417381 HC upheld the Tribunal's restoration of the assessing officer's order, rejecting the appellant's claim that assessment was based solely on the statement recorded under s.132(4). The court held that the AO relied on seized material as well, and that statements under s.132(4) carry strong evidentiary value per established SC precedent; the burden lies on the deponent to rebut them with cogent, corroborative evidence. The appellant's late retraction and interested affidavits were held unreliable. No substantial question of law arose, so the Tribunal's factual findings were affirmed. en-us Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417381 HC upheld the Tribunal's restoration of the assessing officer's order, rejecting the appellant's claim that assessment was based solely on the statement recorded under s.132(4). The court held that the AO relied on seized material as well, and that statements under s.132(4) carry strong evidentiary value per established SC precedent; the burden lies on the deponent to rebut them with cogent, corroborative evidence. The appellant's late retraction and interested affidavits were held unreliable. No substantial question of law arose, so the Tribunal's factual findings were affirmed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417381