Page 6 - DTPA Journal December 21
P. 6
e Journal
eJournal
Nov. - Dec., 2021
taken under inter alia coercion and or by filing complaint to superior
intimidation. Merely mentioning that authorities or otherwise brought to
the statement was recorded using notice of the higher officials by filing
undue influence, threat or coercion, duly sworn affidavit or statement
or that there was a mistake of facts or supported by convincing evidence.
law, may not be enough. What has to Duration of time when such retraction is
be seen is how clearly the same is made assumes significance and in the
spelt out and what evidence, has been present case retraction has been made
furnished to demonstrate the same. by the assessee after 237 days.
b) In Asstt. CIT v. Rameshchandra R. 5. Statements made involuntarily i.e.
Patel [2004] 89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM) obtained under coercion, threat, duress,
it was held that the assessee had a right undue influence etc.: In Deepchand & Co
to retract but that has to be based on v. ACIT [1995] 51 TTJ (Bom.) 421, the
evidence brought on record to the ITAT, Mumbai held that there is no
contrary and there must be supporting evidence to confirm the
justifiable reason and material for additions except the statements of two
accepting retraction i.e., cogent and partners recorded at the time of search. It
sufficient material have to be placed on would not be out of context to mention that
record for acceptance of retraction. All the statements recorded by the search
that has to be done by the assessee if he party for 2 days cannot be considered to
is to retract the statement which was be free, fearless and voluntary. There is
recorded in the presence of witnesses a considerable substance in the assessee's
unless there is evidence of pressure or contention that the statements were
coercion. Further corroboration of recorded under pressure and force. The
retracted statement is necessary Tribunal had held that retraction should be
where the assessee established at the allowed if it is based on proper principles
earliest possible opportunity by and evidence. In the ordinary course, no
leading reliable evidence and assessee would say that he had much
proving thereby the erroneous or concealed unaccounted money as
incorrect nature of the facts admitted mentioned in the statements herein.
or confessed and also where evidence Putting in the mouth of the assessee that so
available on record is inconsistent with much amount was unaccounted and
the confessional statement. concealed would itself indicate that the
admission was forcible and not voluntary.
4. Intimation of retraction to higher
authorities: In Principal CIT v. Roshan Lai 6. Retraction after obtaining copy of
Sancheti [2019] 306 CTR (Raj) 140, the Statement on ground of mistaken belief
Court held that “Statement recorded under either of fact or law:
sec. 132(4) and later confirmed in a) In Jyotichand Bhaichand Saraf &
statement recorded under sec. 131, cannot Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy
be discarded simply by observing that the Commissioner of Income-tax,
assessee has retracted the same because Circle 11(1) (ITAT Pune) [2012]
such retraction ought to have been 139 ITD 10 (Pune), during search
generally made within reasonable time action, statement of the Director of
2
e-JOURNAL
e-JOURNAL
