M.V. NAYAR, A.M. assessee is in appeal against order of CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi, in appeal No. 31/2002-03, dt. 24th March, 2003. number of argumentative grounds of appeal have been raised involving following two grievances only : "1. Disallowance of relief under s. 80HHC on export profits of Rs. 52,66,869, and 2. Addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained investment on office renovation." We may also mention that assessee had also filed application for admission of additional ground challenging validity of assessment on ground that notice under s. 143(2) was not served on assessee within 12 months of 31st Oct., 1995 when return was filed by her. We have already passed order dt. 30th Sept., 2004 rejecting application for admission of additional ground. 2 . appeal had also come up earlier before Tribunal. Initially, assessment was made on 27th March, 1 99 8 in which similar stand was taken by AO which was confirmed by CIT(A) by his order dt. 2nd Sept., 1 99 8. In appeal, Bench D of Tribunal in ITA No. 5228/Del/1 99 8 set aside orders of authorities below restoring matter back on file of AO with direction to decide case afresh after giving due opportunity to assessee. 3. assessee was proprietor of concern called Basera Exports, which was engaged in business of exporting variety of goods. search was conducted on office premises of assessee on 24th/25th Aug., 1 99 4 under s. 132 of Act. In course of search, authorised officer recorded statement of Late Shri Vinod Grover, husband of assessee, who also held her general power of attorney. It is admitted position that Late Sh. Grover carried on entire business of assessee and assessee was, therefore, not examined by authorised officer. Subsequent to search, assessee in response to summon under s. 131 of Act issued by ADI (Inv.), also endorsed her husband s statement. 4. On 13th Sept., 1 99 4, i.e., about 21 days after income-tax search, another search was conducted by officers of Enforcement Directorate under s. 37 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). This search had no connection with earlier search conducted under s. 132 of Act. Enforcement Officers also did not examine assessee though FERA search was conducted on her residential premises. However, detailed statement of Sh. Vinod Grover was recorded under s. 40 of FERA. Sh. Vinod Grover was put under arrest immediately thereafter and produced before Magistrate on very next day, i.e., 14th Sept., 1 99 4. He was remanded to judicial custody and his bail application was posted for hearing. However, before bail application could be heard, he was detained under COFEPOSA. He continued to remain in jail till 31st Aug., 1 99 5, when he was released on orders of Delhi High Court. 5. disallowance of relief under s. 80HHC is based on statement of Shri Grover recorded under s. 40 of FERA (hereinafter, referred to as FERA statement ); whereas, addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of unexplained investment is based on surrender made by Shri Vinod Grover in statement recorded under s. 132 of Act. In other words, two searches and two statements are not only independent of each other, but they also have no commonality. 6 . In this background, we first take up dispute relating to disallowance of claim of relief under s. 80HHC. AO has once again relied on FERA statement of Shri Grover and further held that books of assessee cannot be relied on as these were not found during search operation on 24th Aug., 1 99 4 and were not produced before Investigation authorities during post-search inquiries. He observed that "the total export turnover shown by assessee was of Rs. 7.6 crores out of which Rs. 7.5 was made to M/s Less & Less Trading Co., Dubai, genuinity of which is doubtful. Sh. Vinod Grover admitted in FERA statement that exports were over- invoiced by 15 times and differential amount was sent to M/s Basera Exports bank account by Manu of Dubai." He, therefore, rejected claim of relief under s. 80HHC on ground that "it is admitted fact that export consignment had much lower value than shown in invoices and differential amount was arranged by Mr. Manu and finally deposited in bank account of M/s Basera Exports. Therefore, it is very clear that amount shown by assessee as export receipts were not receipts for exports in real sense, therefore, deduction under s. 80HHC cannot be allowed to assessee." 7 . CIT(A) upheld order of AO on basis of FERA statements of Shri Grover. He also did not accept contention that in view of Shri Grover s retraction before Magistrate on 14th Sept., 1 99 4, FERA statement had no evidentiary value. relevant observations of CIT(A) are reproduced below : C. Sampath Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate AIR 1 99 8 SC 16, 17 : (1 99 7) 8 SCC 358 : 1 99 7 (96) ELT 511 (SC)]. In Ambalal vs. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 264 : 1961 SCR 933, Constitution Bench of Supreme Court opined that such course was desirable and observed that giving of statement in writing under signature of maker safeguards interest of maker as well as Department and eliminates possibility of making complain subsequently that statement was not correctly recorded by authorities." 8. CIT(A) also quoted following excerpts of Vinod Grover s statement : 9 . Relying on above cited excerpts of statement under s. 40 of FERA, CIT(A) held : 10. We have heard Shri Kapila, learned counsel for assessee, at length and have also perused five paper books containing voluminous evidence filed with AO. number of judgments were cited by him in support of his contentions which we shall consider in due course. thrust of his arguments is two-fold : 11. In support of contention that FERA statement was not voluntary and retraction of Shri Vinod Grover was not afterthought, it is submitted that assessee was searched by Enforcement Directorate in evening of 13th Sept., 1 99 4 and sometime late in evening he was taken to Enforcement Directorate office by officers of Directorate and kept in illegal custody till next date. Shri Grover was produced before Magistrate on 14th Sept., 1 99 4, before whom at first opportunity he retracted FERA statement. Para 3 of bail application clearly states that he "was forced to make involuntary statement by Enforcement Officers." That Shri Grover was diabetic and had already suffered two heart-attacks in 1989 and 1 99 3 and was always under heavy medication. It is contended that seen in this light FERA statement has no evidentiary value. He also distinguished decisions relied on by CIT(A). According to him, Supreme Court s decision in Ambalal vs. Union of India 1961 SCR 933 : AIR 1961 SC 264 i s distinguishable as retraction was made long after statement under s. 40 of FERA was recorded and there was no allegation that statement was not voluntary. grievance of accused in that case was that his statement was recorded in English, which he did not understand. He also argues that decision in C. Sampath Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate (1 99 7) 8 SCC 358 : 1 99 7 (96) ELT 511 (SC) in fact supports assessee. 1 2 . It is submitted that assessee had produced before AO all original documents in support of her claim and also filed their copies, which, inter alia, included purchase vouchers, bank statement indicating payments to vendors by pay orders, bank attested invoices, export promotion copies and port trust copies of shipping bills, bills of lading, bank realisation certificates and DEEC pass book containing endorsement of Customs authorities. Revenue was not justified in brushing aside entire body of evidence without any comment or evidence to contrary. Further, accounts of assessee were audited under s. 44AB of Act and auditor s certificate in Form 10CCAC for purpose of s. 80HHC was filed along with return. only reason given by CIT(A) for holding accounts as unreliable is that books of account were not produced before ADI (Inv.). It is contended that in response to question Nos. 25 and 26 Shri Grover had explained to authorised officer that books of account for earlier year and current year were lying with chartered accountant for tallying balances. ADI made no attempt to obtain accounts from assessee s chartered accountant. 13. learned counsel highlighted fact that subsequent to his arrest, Shri Vinod Grover remained in detention in jail from 14th Sept., 1 99 4 to 31st Aug., 1 99 5. Yet, on account of invoices raised earlier, assessee continued to receive payments from Less & Less Trading, Dubai. Remittance amounting to as much as Rs. 192 lakhs were received through bank transfers on 25th Sept., 1 99 4, 27th Sept., 1 99 4, 15th April, 1 99 5, 24th April, 1 99 5 and 6th April, 1 99 5, which were directly credited to assessee s bank accounts. As Sri Vinod Grover was in jail, there could be no question of his disbursing monies to Hawala parties in manner described in FERA statement. 14. learned counsel contends that proprietor of M/s Less & Less Trading, Dubai was examined by Enforcement officials and he confirmed importing brass tips from assessee. He drew our attention to Shri Grover s affidavit and Governments counter affidavit filed before Delhi High Court, wherein though Enforcement Directorate has specifically denied allegation regarding message recovered from Laxmichand Dhamija, there is no specific denial of allegation relating to verification made from M/s Less & Less Trading Co. It is urged that CIT(A) erred in ignoring affidavit of Smt. Sujata Grover wherein she categorically states that no case was ever lodged by Enforcement Directorate against her or against her husband till his death. Referring to Shri Grover s admission in FERA statement that he disbursed sums aggregating more than Rs. 3 crores to one Bhagwan and Gurmeet Singh, no enquiry was made by AO even though statement gives their telephone numbers and addresses. Further, no attempt was made by AO to examine Shri Grover on his statement though he was alive till October, 1 99 7. AO seriously also erred in tarring all export transactions by same brush. He drew our attention to export statements which clearly show that there were exports of about Rs. 10 lakhs to USA and Hong Kong. He alleges that this lapse is indicative of non-application of mind by AO. It is submitted at end that no corroboratory evidence has been adduced by Revenue and their action in not granting relief under s. 80HHC is based on surmises and suspicion only. surmises and suspicion only. 15. learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported orders of authorities below. He further states that comparison of liquid assets in balance sheets of assessee as on 31st March, 1 99 4 and 31st March, 1 99 5 clearly shows that at best assessee could have mobilised funds of about Rs. 2 crores only, whereas she has shown purchases of as much s Rs. 6.5 crores worth of brass tips. He states that Shri Vinod Grover had admitted before FERA authorities that he had made purchases in cash and, therefore, it cannot be said that adequate funds were available for making purchases of such magnitude. He also argues that expenditure on carriage inward of goods purchased is not adequate. learned Departmental Representative goes on to submit that alleged exports of consignments o f ball pen brass tips is highly suspicious, considering fact that in his view brass tips are not half as expensive as steel tips. learned Departmental Representative also highlighted fact as many as 20 consignments of identical value US $ 120000 were shipped to Dubai on same day to same importer in Dubai. This shows that alleged exports were in fact bogus and receipts of money through inward bank remittances were in nature of Hawala transactions. 16. In rejoinder, it is submitted that purchases of brass tips were made from Bombay parties in packed condition, which were directly shipped from Mumbai port to Dubai in single container. expenditure of about Rs. 6 lakhs booked under head freight and carriage is adequate. That all purchase vouchers and shipping bills were duly cleared by Customs authorities and these were filed with AO who has given no adverse finding thereon. 17. We have considered rival submissions. We are of view that CIT(A) was not correct in upholding disallowance of assessee s claim under s. 80HHC. entire body of evidence comprising bank statements, purchase bills, shipping bills, bills of lading, bank realization certificates and DEEC book containing Customs endorsement which was submitted by assessee has been peremptorily ignored by Revenue without any comment. In fact, there is no finding either by AO or by CIT(A) that assessee did not export brass tips. Apparently, inference drawn by them from Vinod Grover s statement is that assessee has over-invoiced export sales. But then, no enquiry at all has been made to show that purchase bills are not what they purport to be. Vinod Grover was arrested by FERA authorities on 14th Sept., 1 99 4 and continued to remain under detention in Tihar Jail till August, 1 99 5. Yet, remittances of as much as Rs. 192 lakhs were received during this period in bank accounts of assessee with Union Bank of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce. In absence of any objective evidence to contrary, view taken by Revenue that what was received was not export sales but Hawala remittances, therefore, becomes untenable. There could be no question of his receiving Hawala monies and disbursing them according to instructions of Mr. Manu during period of his detention. 18. We also find that despite being aware that Vinod Grover had made inculpatory statement before FERA authorities, AO made no attempt to examine him though he was alive till 17th Oct., 1 99 7 when he died of heart attack. We also note that though Vinod Grover in FERA statement mentions names of certain persons and their addresses and telephone numbers to whom he admitted having paid sums on behalf of Manu of Dubai. However, no enquiry was made by AO to contact those people and examine them with view to testing this story. assessee had also filed affidavit, dt. 10th March, 2003, with CIT(A) stating that no prosecution has been initiated or is pending against Basera Exports. CIT(A) has dismissed this affidavit saying that no documentary evidence has been filed. We are of view that CIT(A) was not correct in dismissing affidavit without ascertaining factual position from Enforcement Directorate. 19. There is another reason why action of authorities below cannot be sustained. It is not for first time that assessee has claimed relief under s. 80HHC on export profits. It is evident from assessment order for asst. yr. 1 99 3-94 that assessee was granted relief of Rs. 1,59,42,053 under s. 80HHC of Act. perusal of said order and office note appended to it makes it quite clear that relief was granted after due verification of appraisal report in respect of searches carried out on assessee. assessment order for asst. yr. 1 99 4-95 dt. 30th March, 1 99 9, i.e., about 5 years after search, relief under s. 80HHC was again allowed on export years after search, relief under s. 80HHC was again allowed on export turnover of Rs. 16,09,24,611. said turnover included export sales of Rs. 17,73,962 in respect of exports to M/s Less & Less Trading, Dubai. Relief under s. 80HHC in respect of this item of export was not originally allowed by AO on ground that evidence of realisation of sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange was not furnished. assessee took up matter in appeal and CIT(A) by his order dt. 11th Aug., 2000 held in para 3.1 of his order that assessee had received sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange in June, 1 99 4 and, therefore, entitled to relief under s. 80HHC. learned counsel for assessee brought to our notice fact that CIT had filed appeal against said order of CIT(A) (appeal No. 4669/Del/2000). We find from copy of Form 36 containing grounds of appeal filed by Revenue in that appeal that it did not challenge this direction of CIT(A). only ground which was agitated in that appeal was in regard to eligibility of exchange rate fluctuations gains for relief under s. 80HHC. In other words, CIT accepted finding of CIT(A) that assessee was entitled to relief under s. 80HHC on export sales to M/s Less & Less Trading, Dubai. Considering fact that AO had not only passed orders for asst. yr. 1 99 3-94 and for asst. yr. 1 99 4-95 years after search, but had also specifically referred to it, Revenue cannot now be allowed to raise this issue. There must be some reason for change in decision in subsequent year. We find none. No new material has come to light. Our view is supported by decision of Delhi High Court in case of Director of IT vs. Degussa A.G. Germany (2004) 187 CTR (Del) 295 : (2004) 270 ITR 301 (Del). 20. We also do not agree with learned Departmental Representative that opening and closing balances in balance sheets as on 31st March, 1 99 4 and 31st March, 1 99 5 should be compared to find out source of funds for purchases during relevant financial year 1 99 4-95. Such method is contrary to principles of accounting because it does not take into account financial transactions, both on debit and credit side, undertaken during intervening year. purchases were admittedly made on credit and payments were made from bank accounts of assessee as and when she received remittances on exports. 2 1 . Coming to question of evidentiary value of Sri Grover s FERA statement, it is now settled law that though statement under s. 40 of FERA can be used against assessee, Courts must also take into account circumstances in which such statement was made and subsequent retraction. We have gone through Panchnama drawn up by Enforcement Officer on conclusion of FERA search and statements of Shri Grover under s. 40 of that Act. search took place at residential premises of assessee at Naraina and it was concluded at 5.30 in evening of 13th Sept., 1 99 4. office of Enforcement Directorate was housed in Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. Obviously it must have taken more than hour for assessee to reach office. We agree with learned counsel that t h e statement was recorded only after office hours. On perusal of statement, we find that no oath was administered to Shri Grover and nor was statement made under solemn affirmation. We also notice that every page of statement, apparently written in hand of Vinod Grover, bears at bottom his signature along with date. First nine pages of statement bear date 13th Sept., 1 99 4. However, from tenth page onwards, statement bears date of 14th Sept., 1 99 4 alongside signature of Vinod Grover. This continues till p. 13 of statement where in middle of page Vinod Grover records that "further statement, I shall tender after having rest and meal". But word meal is struck off. There was apparently break before resuming statement and he writes "after having rest I am making statement as under.." statement then goes on for another two pages bearing date 14th Sept., 1 99 4. It is, therefore, clear that : (1) statement was recorded much after business hours well beyond midnight of 13/14th Sept., 1 99 4, and (2) statement was recorded without administering oath and nor was it made under solemn affirmation. 22. It has been held by Supreme Court in case of C. Sampath Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate (supra) that though there is no presumption that submission before FERA authorities which is subsequently retracted is always involuntary , Court must satisfy itself whether there was any element of compulsion visible from statement . (Emphasis, italicised in print, supplied). In that case, statement was not furnished before Court and, therefore, it was held that it was not possible for them to assess whether any compulsion was exercised by Enforcement officials. In case of Leelaram O. Akatrai vs. Asstt. Director of Enforcement (2000) 111 Taxman 252 (FERAB), FERA Board held that statement recorded by FERA authorities after 8 O clock in evening could not be said to be statement as contemplated under s. 40 of Act and cannot be in nature of any evidence. In case of R.R. Gavit vs. Smt. Sherbanoo Hasan Daya (1986) 55 CTR (Bom) 427 : (1986) 161 ITR 793 (Bom), Bombay High Court has held that where "the caption of statement was on oath/solemnly affirmed . Neither of two had been struck to prove beyond doubt that statement was given on oath". It has also been held by Supreme Court in case of K.T.M.S. Mohammad & Anr. vs. Union of India (1 99 2) 108 CTR (SC) 84 : (1 99 2) 197 ITR 196 (SC) that FERA and IT Act are two separate and independent special Acts operating in two different fields and, therefore, significance of statement recorded under provisions of FERA must be examined only q u the provisions of FERA and not with reference to provisions of IT Act. Further, in absence of any examination by AO it cannot be said that any inculpatory statement was made before tax authorities. Supreme Court also laid down that Court must take both statement under s. 40 as well as retraction and give finding about nature of repudiation and it was not legally permissible for Revenue to bisect two statements and make use of inculpatory one alone by passing other. In A. Abdullah vs. FERA Board (1 99 7) 90 Comp. Cas 193 (Mad), Madras High Court applied following observation of Supreme Court in case of Muthuswamy vs. State of Madras AIR 1984 SC 4 : "The only reason High Court gives for accepting confession is because learned Judges considered there was intrinsic material to indicate its genuineness. But only feature learned Judges specify is that it contains wealth of detail which could not have been invented. But point overlooked is that none of this detail has been tested. confession is long and rambling one which could have been invented by agile mind or pieced together after tutoring...... But unless main features of story are shown to be true, it is, in our opinion, unsafe to regard mere wealth of uncorroborated detail as safeguard of truth." (Emphasis, italicised in print, supplied). 23. Keeping in view law as emerging from judgments quoted above and in backdrop of facts of case, we hold that purported statement of Shri Vinod Grover recorded by Enforcement Officers has no evidentiary value. learned Departmental Representative also did not challenge applicability of these judgments to facts of present case. entire case of Revenue rests on FERA statement of Shri Grover. No enquiry has been conducted by AO for adducing corroboratory evidence. On other hand, from voluminous documentary evidence filed by assessee it is clear that there was export of goods for which money in convertible foreign exchange was received in bank accounts of assessee. Thus, assessee satisfies conditions laid down in s. 80HHC and we, therefore, direct AO to allow claim. 24. second ground of appeal is in regard to addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained investment. facts leading to said addition have been narrated in appellate order in ground No. 5, which reads as under : 25. learned counsel submits that authorities below have not taken into account circumstances in which statement was made by Shri Grover. search under s. 132 of Act was carried out on business premises of assessee on 24th Aug., 1 99 4. search continued for whole day but no incriminating documents or valuables were found or seized by authorised officers. No documents relating to renovation of office were found at business premises on basis of which any question could be put to Shri Vinod Grover under s. 132(4) of Act. Indeed, no such question was put to him. learned counsel drew our attention to statement of Vinod Grover (pp. 3-11 of paper book-B) where in response to question 22, it is stated "statement continued on 25th Aug., 1 99 4 at 1:30 a.m.". He also drew our attention to medical records of Shri Grover, which clearly show that he was chronic patient of diabetes and had already suffered two heart-attacks. It is vehemently argued that Vinod Grover was in confused state of mind in early hours of morning due to his diabetic condition when he made surrender. It is submitted that this admission was made by Vinod Grover at very end of statement, i.e., in response to last question No. 33 which reads as under : 26. It is urged that earlier in response to questions No. 27 and 28, Shri Grover had clearly stated that whatever investment made on building has been duly accounted in books of account. However, in response to question No. 33 his answer was contradictory and incoherent. That he states that he made said investment out of business income of assessee and yet he makes surrender. It is argued that apparently, he remembered that he had made payment of Rs. 10 lakhs in current financial year which was accounted for in earlier year. Our attention was drawn to bills of interior decorators called Nirman, Noida, filed with AO. It is seen from bills that there was extensive renovation of office premises during financial year 1 99 3-94. On 5th Jan., 1 99 4, assessee received bill of Rs. 21,93,340 which was passed by assessee for Rs. 21,34,104 and paid within financial year 1 99 3-94. assessee received another bill for balance amount of Rs. 10,47,500 which was passed for Rs. 10 lakhs. This bill was however received on 3rd April, 1 99 4. learned counsel took us through balance sheet for financial year 1 99 3-94 to show that in schedule of fixed assets, assessee had booked and capitalized entire expenditure of Rs. 31,34,104 (21,34,104 + 10 lakhs) and claimed depreciation which was allowed in assessment for preceding asst. yr. 1 99 4-95. However, payment of sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was made on 24th Aug., 1 99 4 for which he drew our attention to relevant entry in its bank account with Union Bank of India. counsel further relied on judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case o f CIT vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (2000) 163 CTR (AP) 403 : (1 99 9) 238 ITR 177 (AP) for proposition that surrender made by Shri Grover was not surrender as contemplated under s. 132(4) and, therefore, it cannot form basis for addition. 27. learned Departmental Representative, submits that schedule of fixed assets to balance sheets as on 31st March, 1 99 4 clearly shows that assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 31,34,104 on account of furniture and fixtures, in preceding financial year and there is no change on this account in balance sheet for period ended 31st March, 1 99 5. That surrender of Rs. 10 lakhs was over and above expenditure already booked in surrender of Rs. 10 lakhs was over and above expenditure already booked in accounts for preceding financial year. 28. We have carefully considered rival submissions. AO has not brought on record any evidence to suggest that expenditure on account of renovation of office was higher than sum of Rs. 31 lakhs reflected in accounts of assessee. No valuation of cost of renovation was made. only basis for making this addition is statement of Sri Grover at time of search. Considering his medical state and fact that surrender was made much after 1:30 a.m. on prompting of AO, and also considering fact he had earlier stated that expenditure on office building was fully accounted for, evidentiary value of such statement needs to be assessed. CIT(A) has laid stress on fact that Smt. Sujata Grover, assessee, had also endorsed statement of Vinod Grover when she was examined under s. 131 of Act by ADI (Inv.) on 7th Sept., 1 99 4. We do not think that much importance can be attached to statement of Mrs. Sujata Grover for reason that she was not examined at time of search and Revenue itself has taken stand that she was not involved in business affairs, which were entirely managed by her husband who also hold her general power of attorney. CIT(A) has not accepted that expenditure was duly reflected in books of account on ground that books of account for earlier year as well as current year were not found at time of search. These were also not produced in post-search inquiries and these were, therefore, not reliable. learned counsel has drawn our attention to question Nos. 25-26 of Shri Grover s statement. Sh. Grover had explained to authorised officers that books of account for earlier year and current year were lying with chartered accountant. It is contended that no attempt was made by authorised officer or by AO to either contact or issue summons to chartered accountant for production of books of account. In response to summons assessee produced balance sheet for financial year 1 99 3-94, before ADI (Inv.) on 7th Sept., 1 99 4. This is evident from question Nos. 13 and 14 of her statement (pp. 16 to 17 of paper book-B) which reads as under : 29. We find that books of account for earlier two assessment years were accepted by AO after detailed scrutiny. accounts were also audited. assessments for asst. yrs. 1 99 3-94 and 1 99 4-95 were made long after search and after taking into account statements recorded at time of search. This year also audited accounts have not been rejected and declared profits have been fully accepted, excepting rejection of claim of relief under s. 80HHC. impugned addition of Rs. 10 lakhs has been made not on basis of any defect in accounts, but only on basis of statement of Shri Grover at time of search. It is in this context that we need to examine relevance and admissibility of surrender, made by Shri Grover. Revenue could not indicate any document which was found at time of search and from which it could be inferred that expenditure on renovations including furniture and fixtures was incurred during current year outside books of account. In absence of any such material, surrender by Shri Grover does not arise form search carried out under s. 132 of Act. As has been held by Andhra Pradesh High Court, in case of Ramdas Motor Transport (supra), statement recorded by authorised officer in such circumstances cannot be said to be statement contemplated under s. 132(4) of Act. It has, therefore, no evidentiary value. assessee, therefore, succeeds on this ground also. 30. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. *** SMT. SUJATA GROVER v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX