Integrated Service Point Ltd. Vs Dy./ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued with approval of the Member of CBDT instead of Pr. CCIT is void and invalid. Accordingly, order passed under section 147 is without legal standing and hence quashed.
Facts- The assessee is a company operating in two major vertical segments, the first one being Export of Black Strap Molasses and the second being Bulk Supply of Agricultural Commodities viz. edible oils, pulses, sugar, and other products.
These appeals are filed both by the Revenue and the Assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 for the assessment years 2016-17, 2019-20 both dated 11.04.2025 and 2022-23 dated 25.04.2025. The Order u/S 250 in the case of the appellant company was passed in all these three years partly allowing the grounds of appeal of the appellant and aggrieved by failure to extend complete relief, the assessee is on appeal for all the three years, while the Department is on appeal contesting such partial relief extended to the assessee.
Conclusion- It is well-settled that a statement made during a search under Section 132(4) can be retracted to the extent it is incorrect or involuntary, especially if the retraction is supported by credible evidence. In the instant case, aspects of the deposition that were inconsistent with the contents of the seized records have been proven to be incorrect. Therefore, complete reliance cannot be placed on Shri Stanley Babu’s statement, and it can only be relied upon to the extent it finds support in the seized records. Accordingly, while Sections 132(4), 132(4A), and 292C operate in conjunction, the retraction to the extent it is corroborated by the seized records is valid. The contention of the Revenue that the statement under Section 132(4) is final and wholly persuasive is, therefore, unsustainable.
