TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. P. Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue). 2. These appeals filed by the assessees under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act") emanate from common order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). 3. The subject matter of these appeals pertains to block period 1989-1990 to 1999-2000. The appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the income tax appellate tribunal committed an error of law in reversing the well-reasoned order dated 03.07.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that the assessees' husbands, during the course of search proceedings, had categorically admitted that the total investment in the construction was Rs. 15 lakhs only and the accounted portion was Rs.7 lakhs. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of admission made under Section 132 (4) of the 1961 Act during the course of search proceedings, inter alia, held that there is no proof to the contrary and accordingly treated the difference amount of Rs.8 lakhs as unexplained investment and since both the assessees had 50% share in the construction, he, therefore treated Rs.4 lakhs each as undisclosed investment for the block period in the hands of the assessees. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent material to disprove the same. The Tribunal therefore set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored the addition in case of both the assessees. Hence, these appeals. 8. Learned counsel for the assessees submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that mere statements of the husbands of the assessees at the time of search, cannot form the basis to assess the income of the assessees. It is submitted that the statements made under Section 132 (4) of the 1961 Act during the course of search proceedings ought to be accompanied by the material which may be collected during the course of search proceedings. 9. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 or under the 1961 Act. Explanation to Section 132 (4) provides that examination of any person referred to in Section 132 (4) may not be merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding either under the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 or under the 1961 Act. 14. Thus, it is evident that a statement recorded under Section 132 (4) of the 1961 Act is evidence within the purview of evidence under Section 158BD of the 1961 A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal cost of construction was Rs. 15 lakhs was reiterated by the assessees on 03.05.1999. Once the statements were recorded on oath, the statements had an evidentiary value and the presumption is that the statements made under Section 132 (4) of the 1961 Act are true and correct unless the assessees plead that the statements have been obtained forcibly or by coercion or undue influence. Once the statements are recorded under Section 132 (4) of the 1961 Act, the same can be used as evidence against the assessees. In such a case, the burden lies on the assessees to establish that the admission made in the statements is either incorrect or wrong. 17. In the instant cases, the assessees have failed to discharge the said burden. It is not the ....