1999 (1) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ces of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that it is a fit case in which registration ought to have been granted ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the statements of partners recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act cannot be used against the assessee while refusing registration under section 185(1)(b) of the Act ?" The assessee-firm was a dealer in country liquor. An application seeking registration of the firm was filed along with the partnership deed executed on March 18, 1985. Nine partners were shown in the firm and the firm was shown to have come into existence on March 2, 1984. Search operations were conducted at the assessee's busi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Act were admissible in evidence against the assessee-firm. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Kerala High Court in V. Kunhambu and Sons v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 235. In that case, the question under consideration was whether the authorised officer could record the statement on oath during search and seizure on all matters pertaining to the suppressed income. After considering the Explanation to section 132 of the Act, it was held that statements on all matters pertaining to the suppressed income can be recorded. It may be noticed that the Explanation below sub-section (4) of section 132 was inserted with effect from April 1, 1989. Therefore, the aforesaid decision on the said Explanation is not relevant as the assessment year....