They recorded your statement in a survey. Can the addition rest on that alone?
No. Section 133A gives no power to examine anyone on oath, so a survey statement has no evidentiary value on its own and does not bind you — especially once it is retracted. Something more is needed.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India) on 2012-09-20, reported as (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (2012) 210 Taxman 248; 254 CTR 228. It bears on section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
Surveys often end with a signed admission and an assessment built entirely on it. The distinction that decides those cases is simple and statutory: s.132(4) allows an oath, s.133A does not.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A survey under s.133A was carried out at the assessee firm's premises in Salem on 24 July 2001. A partner, new to the management, gave a sworn statement offering additional income of Rs 20,00,000 for assessment year 2001-02 and Rs 30,00,000 for assessment year 2002-03. The firm retracted that statement by letter of 3 August 2001, saying the partner could not answer the enquiries made and had agreed to an ad hoc figure the business could never achieve. The Assessing Officer nonetheless made the addition, disbelieving books produced after the survey. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal both held for the assessee, the Madras High Court declined to interfere, and the Department appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Department's appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave and then dismissed the appeal in view of the concurrent findings of fact, affirming the Madras High Court. The proposition the case is cited for is the High Court's: s.133A gives no power to examine a person on oath, so a statement recorded in a survey is not given evidentiary value and does not automatically bind the assessee, and an admission made in such a statement cannot by itself be made the basis of an addition.
The Madras High Court reasoned that the power to examine a person on oath is conferred expressly and only by s.132(4), in the course of a search or seizure; where Parliament thought such a power necessary it said so, and s.133A contains no equivalent. A statement recorded in a survey is therefore not given evidentiary value, because the officer cannot administer an oath. The word 'may' in s.133A(3)(iii) - record the statement of any person which may be useful for or relevant to any proceeding - shows that material collected and statements recorded in a survey are not conclusive evidence in themselves. An admission is an important piece of evidence but is not conclusive, and the person who made it may show it to be incorrect. Since there was no material on record proving the existence of the disclosed income, the addition could not rest on the partner's statement alone. The Court also noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had acted on the Board's circular of 10 March 2003 discouraging the extraction of confessions during search and survey. Finding no substantial question of law, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In the Supreme Court the appeal was dismissed on the concurrent findings of fact, without further reasoning.
In view of the concurrent findings of fact, this civil appeal is dismissed.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Section 133A gives no power to examine anyone on oath, so a survey statement has no evidentiary value on its own and does not bind you — especially once it is retracted. Something more is needed. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India) and bears on section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (2012) 210 Taxman 248; 254 CTR 228. Surveys often end with a signed admission and an assessment built entirely on it. The distinction that decides those cases is simple and statutory: s.132(4) allows an oath, s.133A does not. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Establish first whether the statement was recorded under s.133A in a survey or under s.132(4) in a search — the answer changes everything.
A survey under s.133A was carried out at the assessee firm's premises in Salem on 24 July 2001. A partner, new to the management, gave a sworn statement offering additional income of Rs 20,00,000 for assessment year 2001-02 and Rs 30,00,000 for assessment year 2002-03. The firm retracted that statement by letter of 3 August 2001, saying the partner could not answer the enquiries made and had agreed to an ad hoc figure the business could never achieve. The Assessing Officer nonetheless made the addition, disbelieving books produced after the survey. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal both held for the assessee, the Madras High Court declined to interfere, and the Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The matter was decided on 2012-09-20 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The Department's appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave and then dismissed the appeal in view of the concurrent findings of fact, affirming the Madras High Court. The proposition the case is cited for is the High Court's: s.133A gives no power to examine a person on oath, so a statement recorded in a survey is not given evidentiary value and does not automatically bind the assessee, and an admission made in such a statement cannot by itself be made the basis of an addition.
The Madras High Court reasoned that the power to examine a person on oath is conferred expressly and only by s.132(4), in the course of a search or seizure; where Parliament thought such a power necessary it said so, and s.133A contains no equivalent. A statement recorded in a survey is therefore not given evidentiary value, because the officer cannot administer an oath. The word 'may' in s.133A(3)(iii) - record the statement of any person which may be useful for or relevant to any proceeding - shows that material collected and statements recorded in a survey are not conclusive evidence in themselves. An admission is an important piece of evidence but is not conclusive, and the person who made it may show it to be incorrect. Since there was no material on record proving the existence of the disclosed income, the addition could not rest on the partner's statement alone. The Court also noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had acted on the Board's circular of 10 March 2003 discouraging the extraction of confessions during search and survey. Finding no substantial question of law, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In the Supreme Court the appeal was dismissed on the concurrent findings of fact, without further reasoning. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In view of the concurrent findings of fact, this civil appeal is dismissed."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2012-09-20 and is reported as (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (2012) 210 Taxman 248; 254 CTR 228. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 133A, section 132(4), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Department's appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave and then dismissed the appeal in view of the concurrent findings of fact, affirming the Madras High Court. The proposition the case is cited for is the High Court's: s.133A gives no power to examine a person on oath, so a statement recorded in a survey is not given evidentiary value and does not automatically bind the assessee, and an admission made in such a statement cannot by itself be made the basis of an addition. It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If it was a survey statement, retract it promptly and in writing, with the reasons and any supporting material. Ask what evidence besides the statement supports the addition; if there is none, say so.
Still good law. The principle continues to be applied: the Delhi High Court in PCIT v ARN Infrastructure (24 August 2023) held that statements under s.133A have no evidentiary value because the officer cannot administer an oath, stressing the qualitative difference between s.133A and s.132(4). The Finance Act 2020 introduced approval requirements for survey action but did not disturb this evidentiary principle. Correction (2026-09-09): the principle so applied is the Madras High Court's, not the Supreme Court's, and this note should not be read as attributing it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's order of 20 September 2012 reads, in full as reproduced verbatim in later Tribunal orders (e.g. Rajda Polymers, Kolkata v DCIT, ITAT Kolkata, 8 November 2017, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110834530/): "Heard Counsel on both the sides. Leave granted. The civil appeal filed by the department pertains to Assessment Year 2001-02. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, this civil appeal is dismissed." The Court granted leave and then declined to disturb concurrent findings of fact; it did not itself lay down the s.133A evidentiary proposition and gave no reasons for it. Anyone citing "the Supreme Court in Khader Khan Son" for the evidentiary rule is leaning on more than the order says. The decision affirmed is CIT v S. Khader Khan Son, Madras High Court, P.D. Dinakaran and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja JJ, 4 July 2007, T.C.(A) No. 867 of 2007, assessment year 2001-02 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1415109/), which held that a statement recorded under s.133A is not given evidentiary value because the officer is not authorised to administer an oath, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal finding no substantial question of law. Cite this entry as an affirmance on concurrent findings, and the Madras High Court for the rule. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-25. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Supreme Court's order is five sentences: leave was granted and the Department's appeal dismissed in view of the concurrent findings of fact, with the Madras High Court judgment recorded as affirmed. The reasoning that the case is cited for is the Madras High Court's, at [2008] 300 ITR 157, and that Court in turn drew it from the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. Cite it accordingly, rather than as a reasoned Supreme Court statement of the evidentiary rule. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Department's appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave and then dismissed the appeal in view of the concurrent findings of fact, affirming the Madras High Court. The proposition the case is cited for is the High Court's: s.133A gives no power to examine a person on oath, so a statement recorded in a survey is not given evidentiary value and does not automatically bind the assessee, and an admission made in such a statement cannot by itself be made the basis of an addition.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
You surrendered the amount to buy peace and avoid litigation. Does that stop the penalty?
Can papers seized in a search be presumed true against me in the regular assessment?
You admitted something and now want to retract it. Does the admission end the matter?
My client is an employer facing a s.201 order for not deducting on LTC where the employees' itineraries included a foreign leg but the reimbursement was limited to the domestic shortest-route fare. Is the bona fide estimate defence available?