2022 (4) TMI 1418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d perverse finding that without disclosing the material collected during the course of investigation and even without an opportunity given to the assessee, material could not be relied upon. He would next submit that the Tribunal did not take into consideration that no prudent investor would invest in such companies in which the assessee had invested. He would next submit that even if those materials weighed with the Tribunal, in any case, the Tribunal committed perversity and patent illegality in holding that statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, retracted after five months, by itself could not be made a basis to pass an order of addition as was ordered by the Assessing Authority in the present case. The Tribunal by i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Delhi in the case of Suman Poddar Versus Income Tax Officer, ITA No.841/2019 and Bhagirath Aggarwal Versus CIT, ITA No.28/2012. In both the aforesaid decisions, the High Court considered the material on record on its own facts. It was not propounded as the principle of law that without there being any other material, only on the basis of statement recorded under Section 132 (4) of the I.T. Act even though retracted, the addition could be justified. The judgments are distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel for the Revenue relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore reported in AIR 1995 SC 2109 would submit that the Tribunal has not examined the case ....