Short answer: Yes. A statement recorded on oath during a search is evidence, but it is not conclusive, and you may retract it if it is incorrect or was not given freely. Courts have held that a search addition cannot rest on the statement alone without material found in the search, but a retraction carries weight only when it is made promptly, in writing, and supported by facts and documents.
What the law says about search statements
Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Section 247(6) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 for searches initiated from 1 April 2026, allow an officer to examine any person on oath during a search and provide that the statement may be used in evidence. That makes the statement relevant, not final.
The Supreme Court’s view in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973), as quoted by the Madras High Court, is that “An admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive.” The person who made it may show that it is wrong. In CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (4 July 2007), the Madras High Court applied this principle and held that a statement recorded in a survey under Section 133A is not conclusive and does not bind the assessee.
Courts look for corroborating material
In CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (10 March 2016), a Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice S. Muralidhar held that a statement under Section 132(4) “cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment”. It can be used only where it relates to incriminating material found in the search. On the facts, the addition was upheld because a seized diary and other material existed, which shows that the outcome depends on what was found, not only on what was said.
In PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (12 February 2021), the Delhi High Court accepted that such a statement has evidentiary value, but held that it cannot, on a standalone basis, justify additions. The assessee there had no opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statement was relied on.
The CBDT instruction on confessions
By instruction F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) dated 10 March 2003, the CBDT noted that confessions not based on credible evidence are often retracted and “do not serve any useful purpose”. It directed that no attempt should be made to obtain a confession about undisclosed income during search, seizure and survey, and that any action to the contrary would be viewed adversely. A retraction letter can point to circumstances that conflict with this instruction.
How a retraction is usually made
A retraction should be addressed in writing to the authorised officer or the Assessing Officer, as soon as possible after the search. It should explain specifically why the statement was incorrect, for example the absence of records at the time, a misunderstanding of a figure, fatigue after long questioning or pressure, and it should attach the documents that show the correct position. A bare retraction made much later, without reasons, tends to be viewed with caution.
Related questions
Is a disclosure made during a search binding?
It is not conclusive, but if it is left unexplained the Department may rely on it. Under the block assessment scheme for searches from 1 September 2024, penalty is not levied in certain cases where the return is filed, tax is paid on the declared income and that income is not appealed, so the decision to retract should weigh this as well.
Is a statement in a survey treated the same way?
No. The Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son noted that Section 133A did not give a power to examine on oath, unlike Section 132(4), and held that a survey statement is not conclusive.
Can another person’s statement be used against me?
It can be relied on, but the Delhi High Court in Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) treated the lack of an opportunity to cross-examine as a serious defect. Ask in writing for a copy of the statement and for cross-examination.
What if I signed under pressure?
Record the specific circumstances in writing quickly, including timing, duration and who was present. Delay makes it harder to show that the statement was not voluntary.
Practical points
- Ask for a copy of your statement immediately after the search.
- Decide on retraction early and send it in writing, with reasons and supporting documents.
- Map each admission against the seized material; additions need that link.
- Seek copies of third-party statements used against you and request cross-examination.
Sources: Indian Kanoon, CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal, Delhi HC, 10 March 2016; Indian Kanoon, CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son, Madras HC, 4 July 2007; BCAJ, PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), Delhi HC, 2021; ITATOnline, CBDT instruction dated 10 March 2003.
For a confidential discussion on income-tax search and assessment matters, see Income-tax Search and Seizure.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
