2009 (1) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....JUDGMENT 1. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common order: 2. Income-tax Appeals (L) Nos. 3494 of 2008 to 3500 of 2008 are in respect of one, Sanjay S. Jain. In respect of this assessee, the Tribunal was pleased to reverse the judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had rejected the contention of the assessee that the statements recorded were under duress or coercion and as such, could not be accepted. The Tribunal  considering the facts and circumstances was of the view that the addition was made only based on the admission of the assessee at the time of search which had been retracted and that the Assessing Officer as well as the Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f no such details were filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer earlier, then the assessee would file the same in the set aside proceedings and the Assessing Officer will examine the same and decide the issue in accordance with law. 4. At the time of hearing of these appeals, in the case of Sanjay S. Jain, on behalf of the Revenue, learned counsel submits that apart from the statement which was retracted on January 21, 2004, there was a subsequent statement which was made by the assessee on March 25, 2004. Therefore, even if, by subsequent affidavit of June, 2004, the earlier statement was retracted, the statement of March 25, 2004, could not have been ignored, It is also pointed out that on prima facie consideration of the docum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot be sustained. In the first instance, apart from the retracted statement of January 21, 2004, subsequent statement made on March 25, 2004, has not been considered. Secondly, there was documentary evidence on record. The Assessing Officer while considering whether the retraction was under duress or coercion had also to consider the genuineness of the documents which were produced as this is documentary evidence. The test of evidentiary value of the oral evidence and the documentary evidence has to be borne in mind. The Assessing Officer will have to comply with the settled principle of law. Documentary evidence if genuine must prevail over the oral statement. We, however, do not pro - pose to go into these issues as they have not been cons....