E.V. Philip, Philip Garden, Karukutty, Angamally vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment), Special Range-II, Ernakulam

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J

The only question argued before us in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee regarding a statement admittedly recorded from the assessee in terms of Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". That issue has been specifically considered in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been appropriately exercised to advert to the relevant materials and to consider the plea as regards that issue in its entirety. The assessee''s contention is that the addition of an amount of Rupees nine lakhs is unsustainable. He says that the statement u/s 132(4) was recorded from him while he was in a confused state of mind and all that he meant to say then was that he had given three lakhs of rupees to all his three daughters together. He attempts to explain that it was not Rupees three lakhs "each" as recorded in that statement u/s 132(4) and that the amount paid was actually given by their brothers as instructed by the father.

Now, adverting to paragraph 13 of the impugned order, it has been rightly noticed by the Tribunal that after the statements given under oath on 19.2.1996 and 29.2.1996, the assessee did not make any reference to those earlier statements even in his letter dated 13.2.1997. The Tribunal was, in our view, right in holding that there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had ever rebutted the presumption available u/s 132(4). At best what he is shown to have done is to file an affidavit when the matter came up before the Tribunal. Having noticed that, we would reiterate the finding of the Tribunal that even in his letter dated 13.2.1997, the assessee did not make any reference to the earlier statements made under oath on 19.2.1996 and 29.2.1996, to which statements provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act applies. The period within which a statement made on oath is retracted is of abundant relevance in deciding statutory matters of such nature. On the whole, we find no legal infirmity with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in para 13 of the impugned order, thereby holding that the assessee had not succeeded as regarding the amount of Rupees nine lakhs. The decision of the Tribunal confirming the addition of that amount does not warrant interference in this I.T. appeal. The appeal, hence, fails. No other point has been raised or argued before us.

In the result, this8 appeal is dismissed. No costs.