IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 29/2013  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT              ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr Abhishek Maratha, sr. standing counsel with Mr Anshul Sharma, 
 Adv. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 BAHRI SONS           ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     04.02.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 
 16.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 
 No.2269/Del./2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. 
 . 
 In this case, the assessing officer has made an addition of 
 `50,88,639/- entirely on the basis of a statement recorded by the 
 empowered officer of a partner of the respondent-firm purportedly under 
 Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  The statement was of one Anuj 
 Batra who was a partner in the firm.  The statement was recorded on oath 
 on 19.12.2006. 
 . 
 The short point that falls for consideration is whether such a 
 statement could have been recorded and whether it could be used by the 
 assessing officer for making the said addition.  When one goes through 
 the provisions of Section 133A it becomes clear that the statement that 
 has to be recorded under Section 133A(3)(iii) does not refer to any 
 statement on oath.  A statement on oath can only be recorded under 
 Section 132(4) of the said Act as also under Section 131.  The 
 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition by observing 
 that the provisions of Section 133A do not empower the empowered officer 
 to record a statement on oath.  He had placed reliance on a decision of 
 the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathew and Sons vs. CIT : (2003) 263 ITR 
 101.  Apart from this, on merits also, the Commissioner of Income Tax 
 (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.  The 
 order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed by the Tribunal.  The revenue is 
 in appeal before us.  We do not see any reason to interfere with the 
 Tribunal.  No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 
 . 
 The appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 FEBRUARY 04, 2013 
 . 
 vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 5 
 .