Case Laws & Commentary - Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) - bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: Section 133A - power of survey: entry into business/profession premises (and places where business is carried on) to inspect books, verify cash/stock, record statements, and place marks of identification; sub-section (2A) - survey for TDS/TCS verification; the income-tax authority cannot remove books except as provided and cannot examine on oath.
Chapter / Part: Chapter XIII, Part C - Powers.
FA 2026 status: Not amended by the Finance Act, 2026.
Nature: The everyday on-site verification power, sharply distinguished from search (section 132). Leading theme: a survey statement carries no evidentiary value because it is not on oath.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Survey, and how it differs from search
Section 133A confers the power of survey - a power to enter a place at which a business or profession is carried on (during business hours), to inspect the books of account and other documents, to verify cash, stock and other valuable articles found there, to place marks of identification and to record statements of persons present that may be useful or relevant to a proceeding. It is a lesser and more circumscribed power than search under section 132: the authority may not seize cash or valuables, may not ordinarily remove the books (it may take extracts and impound only with reasons and subject to limits), and - crucially - has no power to examine any person on oath. Survey is the Department's principal tool for on-the-spot verification of business records, stock and cash, and for TDS/TCS compliance under sub-section (2A).
Why a survey statement is weak evidence
The single most important proposition under section 133A is that a statement recorded in the course of a survey has no evidentiary value of the kind a section 132(4) statement has, precisely because the survey authority cannot administer an oath. The Madras High Court so held in S. Khader Khan Son, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the position; the Kerala High Court reached the same conclusion in Paul Mathews & Sons; the Madras High Court in G.K. Senniappan held the 'may' in section 133A(3)(iii) shows the material is not conclusive; and the Delhi High Court in Dhingra Metal Works held that an admission made during survey, though an important piece of evidence, is not conclusive and may be retracted, and that an addition cannot be sustained merely on the strength of such a statement unsupported by material. Where a survey statement is retracted (especially if extracted under pressure), the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gajjam Chinna Yellappa held it cannot be the sole basis of assessment and must be corroborated. The doctrinal root is the Supreme Court's holding in Pullangode Rubber that an admission is not conclusive.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced below is section 133A as it stands in the bare Act.
133A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, an income-tax authority may enter—
(a) any place within the limits of the area assigned to him, or
(b) any place occupied by any person in respect of whom he exercises jurisdiction, or
(c) any place in respect of which he is authorised for the purposes of this section by such income-tax authority, who is assigned the area within which such place is situated or who exercises jurisdiction in respect of any person occupying such place, at which a business or profession or an activity for charitable purpose is carried on, whether such place be the principal place or not of such business or profession or of such activity for charitable purpose, and require any proprietor, trustee, employee or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to, or helping in, the carrying on of such business or profession or such activity for charitable purpose—
(i) to afford him the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place,
(ii) to afford him the necessary facility to check or verify the cash, stock or other valuable article or thing which may be found therein, and
(iii) to furnish such information as he may require as to any matter which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a place where a business or profession or activity for charitable purpose is carried on shall also include any other place, whether any business or profession or activity for charitable purpose is carried on therein or not, in which the person carrying on the business or profession or activity for charitable purpose states that any of his books of account or other documents or any part of his cash or stock or other valuable article or thing relating to his business or profession or activity for charitable purpose are or is kept.
(2) An income-tax authority may enter any place of business or profession referred to in sub-section (1) only during the hours at which such place is open for the conduct of business or profession and, in the case of any other place, only after sunrise and before sunset.
(2A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), an income-tax authority acting under this sub-section may for the purpose of verifying that tax has been deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions under sub-heading B of Chapter XVII or under sub-heading BB of Chapter XVII, as the case may be, enter, after sunrise and before sunset, any office, or any other place where business or profession is carried on, within the limits of the area assigned to him, or any place in respect of which he is authorised for the purposes of this section by such income-tax authority who is assigned the area within which such place is situated, where books of account or documents are kept and require the deductor or the collector or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to such work,—
(i) to afford him the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place, and
(ii) to furnish such information as he may require in relation to such matter.
(3) An income-tax authority acting under this section may,—
(i) if he so deems necessary, place marks of identification on the books of account or other documents inspected by him and make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom,
(ia) impound and retain in his custody for such period as he thinks fit any books of account or other documents inspected by him:
Provided that such income-tax authority shall not—
(a) impound any books of account or other documents except after recording his reasons for so doing; or
(b) retain in his custody any such books of account or other documents for a period exceeding fifteen days (exclusive of holidays) without obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or the Director General or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Principal Director or the Director therefor, as the case may be,
(ii) make an inventory of any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing checked or verified by him,
(iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act :
Provided that no action under clause (ia) or clause (ii) shall be taken by an income-tax authority acting under sub-section (2A).
(4) An income-tax authority acting under this section shall, on no account, remove or cause to be removed from the place wherein he has entered, any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing.
(5) Where, having regard to the nature and scale of expenditure incurred by an assessee, in connection with any function, ceremony or event, the income-tax authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, at any time after such function, ceremony or event, require the assessee by whom such expenditure has been incurred or any person who, in the opinion of the income-tax authority, is likely to possess information as respects the expenditure incurred, to furnish such information as he may require as to any matter which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act and may have the statements of the assessee or any other person recorded and any statement so recorded may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under this Act.
(6) If a person under this section is required to afford facility to the income-tax authority to inspect books of account or other documents or to check or verify any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing or to furnish any information or to have his statement recorded either refuses or evades to do so, the income-tax authority shall have all the powers under sub-section (1) of section 131 for enforcing compliance with the requirement made :
Provided that no action under this section shall be taken by an income-tax authority without the approval of the Principal Director General or the Director General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner.
Explanation.—In this section,—
(a) "income-tax authority" means—
(i) a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, a Principal Director or Director, a Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer, or a Tax Recovery Officer; and
(ii) includes an Inspector of Income-tax, for the purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1), clause (i) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (5), who is subordinate to the Principal Director General or the Director General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner, as may be specified by the Board;
(b) "proceeding" means any proceeding under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date on which the powers under this section are exercised or which may have been completed on or before such date and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after such date in respect of any year.
C. AUTHORITIES
Cluster 1 - A survey statement is not on oath and is not conclusive
CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC), affirming (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 20 September 2012 (dismissing the Department's appeal). Reported: (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (2012) 25 taxmann.com 413; (2012) 210 Taxman 248; (2012) 254 CTR 228; (2012) 79 DTR 184. Affirming CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad).
Facts: An addition was made on the basis of a statement recorded from a partner during a survey under section 133A, which the firm subsequently retracted.
Held: Section 133A does not empower the income-tax authority to examine any person on oath; a statement recorded under section 133A therefore has no evidentiary value, and an addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of such a statement. The power to record a sworn statement is conferred only by section 132(4) in the course of a search.
Principle: A survey statement (not being on oath) has no evidentiary value and cannot, by itself, support an addition.
Relevance: The leading authority on the evidentiary worth of survey statements; affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker)
Forum / Citation: Kerala High Court, 2003. Reported: (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker).
Held: Section 133A enables the authority only to record a statement that may be useful or relevant; it does not authorise the taking of a sworn statement. The power to examine on oath is conferred only by section 132(4). A statement recorded under section 133A is therefore not given the sanctity of a sworn statement and cannot be the sole basis of an addition.
Principle: The distinction between section 133A (no oath) and section 132(4) (on oath) governs the evidentiary value of the statement.
Relevance: The High Court authority approved in the S. Khader Khan Son line.
CIT v. G.K. Senniappan (2006) 284 ITR 220 (Mad)
Forum / Citation: Madras High Court, 2006. Reported: (2006) 284 ITR 220 (Mad).
Held: The word 'may' in section 133A(3)(iii) ('record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding') makes clear that the material collected and the statement recorded during a survey are not, by themselves, conclusive evidence; an addition cannot rest solely on such material.
Principle: Material and statements gathered in a survey are corroborative at best, not conclusive.
Relevance: A High Court authority preceding and supporting the S. Khader Khan Son line on survey statements.
CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del)
Forum / Citation: Delhi High Court, 2010. Reported: (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del); (2011) 48 DTR 230.
Facts: During a survey, discrepancies in stock and cash were found and an offer of additional income was made; the assessee later retracted, reconciling the discrepancy.
Held: Section 133A does not mandate that a statement recorded under it has evidentiary value; for a statement to have such value the officer must have been authorised to administer an oath, which section 133A does not permit. Though an admission is an important piece of evidence, it is not conclusive and the maker is entitled to show that it was incorrect; an addition cannot be sustained merely on a retracted survey statement.
Principle: A survey admission is not conclusive and is retractable; corroborative material is required to sustain an addition.
Relevance: Confirms the retractability and non-conclusiveness of survey admissions.
Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 1973. Reported: (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC).
Held: An admission is an important piece of evidence but is not conclusive; the maker is entitled to demonstrate that it is incorrect.
Principle: The non-conclusiveness of an admission - the doctrinal root of the rule that a survey statement does not bind the assessee.
Relevance: The Supreme Court foundation on which S. Khader Khan Son and Dhingra Metal Works build for survey statements.
Gajjam Chinna Yellappa v. ITO (2015) 370 ITR 671 (AP)
Forum / Citation: Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2015. Reported: (2015) 370 ITR 671 (AP).
Facts: Survey statements were said to have been recorded under pressure 'till midnight' and were later retracted; additions were founded solely on them.
Held: Where a survey statement is retracted, its evidentiary value is diluted and it cannot constitute the sole basis for an assessment; once retracted, the Assessing Officer must garner independent support before relying on it. An assessment resting only on a retracted, pressure-induced survey statement is not valid. (Conversely, an un-retracted statement may be acted upon.)
Principle: A retracted survey statement needs corroboration; it cannot by itself fasten liability.
Relevance: Applies the non-conclusiveness rule to retracted survey statements and the burden that follows.
Cluster 2 - Tribunal (ITAT): a survey statement is not on oath
The Tribunal anchored, well before the Supreme Court's affirmation in S. Khader Khan Son, the distinction in evidentiary footing between a survey statement and a search statement.
Hotel Kiran v. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune - Trib.)
Forum / Citation: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench. Reported: (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune - Trib.).
Facts: An addition was sought to be supported by a statement recorded in the course of a survey under section 133A.
Held: An admission is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive; but a statement recorded under section 133A stands on a different footing from one recorded under section 132(4), because the survey authority is not empowered to administer an oath and the statute confers no evidentiary value on a survey statement. It is unsafe to sustain an addition on a survey statement alone.
Principle: At the Tribunal level too, the section 132(4) / section 133A distinction governs the weight of a survey statement.
Relevance: An early, much-cited ITAT authority anchoring the survey-statement rule later affirmed by the Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced verbatim from the bare Act (Chapter XIII, ss. 116-138). Each authority is cited with its full parallel reporter citations as reported; Supreme Court, High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings are identified as such. Where a section has not been directly construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority is given. For professional reference; not legal advice.
CHAPTER XIII - INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES
Section 133A - Power of Survey
Case Laws & Commentary - Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) - bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: Section 133A - power of survey: entry into business/profession premises (and places where business is carried on) to inspect books, verify cash/stock, record statements, and place marks of identification; sub-section (2A) - survey for TDS/TCS verification; the income-tax authority cannot remove books except as provided and cannot examine on oath.
Chapter / Part: Chapter XIII, Part C - Powers.
FA 2026 status: Not amended by the Finance Act, 2026.
Nature: The everyday on-site verification power, sharply distinguished from search (section 132). Leading theme: a survey statement carries no evidentiary value because it is not on oath.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Survey, and how it differs from search
Section 133A confers the power of survey - a power to enter a place at which a business or profession is carried on (during business hours), to inspect the books of account and other documents, to verify cash, stock and other valuable articles found there, to place marks of identification and to record statements of persons present that may be useful or relevant to a proceeding. It is a lesser and more circumscribed power than search under section 132: the authority may not seize cash or valuables, may not ordinarily remove the books (it may take extracts and impound only with reasons and subject to limits), and - crucially - has no power to examine any person on oath. Survey is the Department's principal tool for on-the-spot verification of business records, stock and cash, and for TDS/TCS compliance under sub-section (2A).
Why a survey statement is weak evidence
The single most important proposition under section 133A is that a statement recorded in the course of a survey has no evidentiary value of the kind a section 132(4) statement has, precisely because the survey authority cannot administer an oath. The Madras High Court so held in S. Khader Khan Son, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the position; the Kerala High Court reached the same conclusion in Paul Mathews & Sons; the Madras High Court in G.K. Senniappan held the 'may' in section 133A(3)(iii) shows the material is not conclusive; and the Delhi High Court in Dhingra Metal Works held that an admission made during survey, though an important piece of evidence, is not conclusive and may be retracted, and that an addition cannot be sustained merely on the strength of such a statement unsupported by material. Where a survey statement is retracted (especially if extracted under pressure), the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gajjam Chinna Yellappa held it cannot be the sole basis of assessment and must be corroborated. The doctrinal root is the Supreme Court's holding in Pullangode Rubber that an admission is not conclusive.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced below is section 133A as it stands in the bare Act.
133A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, an income-tax authority may enter—
(a) any place within the limits of the area assigned to him, or
(b) any place occupied by any person in respect of whom he exercises jurisdiction, or
(c) any place in respect of which he is authorised for the purposes of this section by such income-tax authority, who is assigned the area within which such place is situated or who exercises jurisdiction in respect of any person occupying such place, at which a business or profession or an activity for charitable purpose is carried on, whether such place be the principal place or not of such business or profession or of such activity for charitable purpose, and require any proprietor, trustee, employee or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to, or helping in, the carrying on of such business or profession or such activity for charitable purpose—
(i) to afford him the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place,
(ii) to afford him the necessary facility to check or verify the cash, stock or other valuable article or thing which may be found therein, and
(iii) to furnish such information as he may require as to any matter which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a place where a business or profession or activity for charitable purpose is carried on shall also include any other place, whether any business or profession or activity for charitable purpose is carried on therein or not, in which the person carrying on the business or profession or activity for charitable purpose states that any of his books of account or other documents or any part of his cash or stock or other valuable article or thing relating to his business or profession or activity for charitable purpose are or is kept.
(2) An income-tax authority may enter any place of business or profession referred to in sub-section (1) only during the hours at which such place is open for the conduct of business or profession and, in the case of any other place, only after sunrise and before sunset.
(2A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), an income-tax authority acting under this sub-section may for the purpose of verifying that tax has been deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions under sub-heading B of Chapter XVII or under sub-heading BB of Chapter XVII, as the case may be, enter, after sunrise and before sunset, any office, or any other place where business or profession is carried on, within the limits of the area assigned to him, or any place in respect of which he is authorised for the purposes of this section by such income-tax authority who is assigned the area within which such place is situated, where books of account or documents are kept and require the deductor or the collector or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to such work,—
(i) to afford him the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place, and
(ii) to furnish such information as he may require in relation to such matter.
(3) An income-tax authority acting under this section may,—
(i) if he so deems necessary, place marks of identification on the books of account or other documents inspected by him and make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom,
(ia) impound and retain in his custody for such period as he thinks fit any books of account or other documents inspected by him:
Provided that such income-tax authority shall not—
(a) impound any books of account or other documents except after recording his reasons for so doing; or
(b) retain in his custody any such books of account or other documents for a period exceeding fifteen days (exclusive of holidays) without obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or the Director General or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Principal Director or the Director therefor, as the case may be,
(ii) make an inventory of any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing checked or verified by him,
(iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act :
Provided that no action under clause (ia) or clause (ii) shall be taken by an income-tax authority acting under sub-section (2A).
(4) An income-tax authority acting under this section shall, on no account, remove or cause to be removed from the place wherein he has entered, any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing.
(5) Where, having regard to the nature and scale of expenditure incurred by an assessee, in connection with any function, ceremony or event, the income-tax authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, at any time after such function, ceremony or event, require the assessee by whom such expenditure has been incurred or any person who, in the opinion of the income-tax authority, is likely to possess information as respects the expenditure incurred, to furnish such information as he may require as to any matter which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act and may have the statements of the assessee or any other person recorded and any statement so recorded may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under this Act.
(6) If a person under this section is required to afford facility to the income-tax authority to inspect books of account or other documents or to check or verify any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing or to furnish any information or to have his statement recorded either refuses or evades to do so, the income-tax authority shall have all the powers under sub-section (1) of section 131 for enforcing compliance with the requirement made :
Provided that no action under this section shall be taken by an income-tax authority without the approval of the Principal Director General or the Director General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner.
Explanation.—In this section,—
(a) "income-tax authority" means—
(i) a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, a Principal Director or Director, a Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer, or a Tax Recovery Officer; and
(ii) includes an Inspector of Income-tax, for the purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1), clause (i) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (5), who is subordinate to the Principal Director General or the Director General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner, as may be specified by the Board;
(b) "proceeding" means any proceeding under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date on which the powers under this section are exercised or which may have been completed on or before such date and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after such date in respect of any year.
C. AUTHORITIES
Cluster 1 - A survey statement is not on oath and is not conclusive
CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC), affirming (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 20 September 2012 (dismissing the Department's appeal). Reported: (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (2012) 25 taxmann.com 413; (2012) 210 Taxman 248; (2012) 254 CTR 228; (2012) 79 DTR 184. Affirming CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad).
Facts: An addition was made on the basis of a statement recorded from a partner during a survey under section 133A, which the firm subsequently retracted.
Held: Section 133A does not empower the income-tax authority to examine any person on oath; a statement recorded under section 133A therefore has no evidentiary value, and an addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of such a statement. The power to record a sworn statement is conferred only by section 132(4) in the course of a search.
Principle: A survey statement (not being on oath) has no evidentiary value and cannot, by itself, support an addition.
Relevance: The leading authority on the evidentiary worth of survey statements; affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker)
Forum / Citation: Kerala High Court, 2003. Reported: (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker).
Held: Section 133A enables the authority only to record a statement that may be useful or relevant; it does not authorise the taking of a sworn statement. The power to examine on oath is conferred only by section 132(4). A statement recorded under section 133A is therefore not given the sanctity of a sworn statement and cannot be the sole basis of an addition.
Principle: The distinction between section 133A (no oath) and section 132(4) (on oath) governs the evidentiary value of the statement.
Relevance: The High Court authority approved in the S. Khader Khan Son line.
CIT v. G.K. Senniappan (2006) 284 ITR 220 (Mad)
Forum / Citation: Madras High Court, 2006. Reported: (2006) 284 ITR 220 (Mad).
Held: The word 'may' in section 133A(3)(iii) ('record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding') makes clear that the material collected and the statement recorded during a survey are not, by themselves, conclusive evidence; an addition cannot rest solely on such material.
Principle: Material and statements gathered in a survey are corroborative at best, not conclusive.
Relevance: A High Court authority preceding and supporting the S. Khader Khan Son line on survey statements.
CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del)
Forum / Citation: Delhi High Court, 2010. Reported: (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del); (2011) 48 DTR 230.
Facts: During a survey, discrepancies in stock and cash were found and an offer of additional income was made; the assessee later retracted, reconciling the discrepancy.
Held: Section 133A does not mandate that a statement recorded under it has evidentiary value; for a statement to have such value the officer must have been authorised to administer an oath, which section 133A does not permit. Though an admission is an important piece of evidence, it is not conclusive and the maker is entitled to show that it was incorrect; an addition cannot be sustained merely on a retracted survey statement.
Principle: A survey admission is not conclusive and is retractable; corroborative material is required to sustain an addition.
Relevance: Confirms the retractability and non-conclusiveness of survey admissions.
Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 1973. Reported: (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC).
Held: An admission is an important piece of evidence but is not conclusive; the maker is entitled to demonstrate that it is incorrect.
Principle: The non-conclusiveness of an admission - the doctrinal root of the rule that a survey statement does not bind the assessee.
Relevance: The Supreme Court foundation on which S. Khader Khan Son and Dhingra Metal Works build for survey statements.
Gajjam Chinna Yellappa v. ITO (2015) 370 ITR 671 (AP)
Forum / Citation: Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2015. Reported: (2015) 370 ITR 671 (AP).
Facts: Survey statements were said to have been recorded under pressure 'till midnight' and were later retracted; additions were founded solely on them.
Held: Where a survey statement is retracted, its evidentiary value is diluted and it cannot constitute the sole basis for an assessment; once retracted, the Assessing Officer must garner independent support before relying on it. An assessment resting only on a retracted, pressure-induced survey statement is not valid. (Conversely, an un-retracted statement may be acted upon.)
Principle: A retracted survey statement needs corroboration; it cannot by itself fasten liability.
Relevance: Applies the non-conclusiveness rule to retracted survey statements and the burden that follows.
Cluster 2 - Tribunal (ITAT): a survey statement is not on oath
The Tribunal anchored, well before the Supreme Court's affirmation in S. Khader Khan Son, the distinction in evidentiary footing between a survey statement and a search statement.
Hotel Kiran v. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune - Trib.)
Forum / Citation: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench. Reported: (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune - Trib.).
Facts: An addition was sought to be supported by a statement recorded in the course of a survey under section 133A.
Held: An admission is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive; but a statement recorded under section 133A stands on a different footing from one recorded under section 132(4), because the survey authority is not empowered to administer an oath and the statute confers no evidentiary value on a survey statement. It is unsafe to sustain an addition on a survey statement alone.
Principle: At the Tribunal level too, the section 132(4) / section 133A distinction governs the weight of a survey statement.
Relevance: An early, much-cited ITAT authority anchoring the survey-statement rule later affirmed by the Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced verbatim from the bare Act (Chapter XIII, ss. 116-138). Each authority is cited with its full parallel reporter citations as reported; Supreme Court, High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings are identified as such. Where a section has not been directly construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority is given. For professional reference; not legal advice.