Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer

10 SCC 473Supreme Court of India2014#573 most cited

What is Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer authority for?

Electronic records are inadmissible in evidence unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

169

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer · Section 65B · Indian Evidence Act · electronic record · admissibility of evidence · certificate requirement · secondary evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 65BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 69CSection 142(1)Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 65(b)section 65b(4)section 65asection 90(3)place of effective managementsection 62section 6(3)section 132(5)section 127(1)illegal paymentsection 65bsection 65

Judgments citing Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Bhushan Dua, Delhi

ITA 2950/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 2756/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Delhi

ITA 2714/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Delhi

ITA 2713/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 2512/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi vs. Bhushan Dua, New Delhi

ITA 2510/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Bhushan Dua, New Delhi

ITA 2509/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Virendra Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (Th. VC)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

…ly if the original electronic media is produced or a valid section 65B(4) certificate—specifying the device, the manner of extraction and affirming the record's integrity is placed on record. 1.9.iii Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. B.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and reiterated in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [2020] 7 SCC 1 has held that “secondary electronic evidence” (such as screenshots) is wholly inadmissible in the absence of such a certificate, and a tribunal cannot look into it for any purpose. No 65B certificate, hash value, or chain-of-custody document has been filed here…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…urther, with respect to the alleged digital evidence, Excel sheets are not admissible as evidence unless they comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) has held and observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, t…

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…urther, with respect to the alleged digital evidence, Excel sheets are not admissible as evidence unless they comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) has held and observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, t…

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…urther, with respect to the alleged digital evidence, Excel sheets are not admissible as evidence unless they comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) has held and observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, t…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…urther, with respect to the alleged digital evidence, Excel sheets are not admissible as evidence unless they comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) has held and observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, t…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…urther, with respect to the alleged digital evidence, Excel sheets are not admissible as evidence unless they comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) has held and observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, t…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…urther, with respect to the alleged digital evidence, Excel sheets are not admissible as evidence unless they comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) has held and observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, t…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4147/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…urther, with respect to the alleged digital evidence, Excel sheets are not admissible as evidence unless they comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) has held and observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, t…

Mohit Gupta HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(6), Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

ITO, Ward-2(1), Ludhiana vs. Ashwani Kumar Jain, Ludihana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/CHANDI/2024[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Balbir Khanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…p chats, must be authenticated and verified before it can be admitted as evidence in any legal proceeding. This Involves proving the authenticity of the source, the integrity of the data, and the relevance of the content. In Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer [2014] 10 SCC 473, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that electronic evidence must meet the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act, including proper ceri\fication under Section 65B, before it can be considered admissible. The VMhatsApp chats in question have not been authenticated or certified under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, they do…

Chetna Sundaram, Janak Puri Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 70(1), Delhi

ITA 2512/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…nd unless the conditions stated in section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 23.3 Further the counsel of the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court (Three Judge bench) in the case of Anvar V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 argued that the requisite certificate from an officer certifying that the print outs in question are from the seized electronic record/device is missing in the present case. 23.4 Further Ld. Counsel of the assessee highlighted that, there is no proof or evidence of the receipt of cash of Rs. 8 lacs as is being alleged. No enquiries have been con…

Vasireddy Vidya Sagar, Guntur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Guntur

ITA 526/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.Τ.Α.Nos.524, 525 & 526/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vasireddy Vidya Sagar D.No. 5-37-44/2, Kalangi Complex 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur - 522002 [Pan: Agzps2420F] V. Dcit – Central Circle – 1 Income Tax Office Lakshmipuram Main Road Guntur - 522006 Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri Mv Prasad, Ca Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2025 07.03.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam – 3 [Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below:-

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153C

…, Madurai [2021] 129 taxmann.com 126 (Madras) (ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun PanditraoKhotkar vs. Kailash KushanraoGorantyal and Ors in Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-20826 of 2017. (iii) Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others [2014] 10 SCC 473 (SC). 38. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted before that the Digital Evidence collection form was obtained from the assessee's premises during the search operations. The Ld. DR also submitted that as per page 33 of the submissions, the system has been identified by the search party. Countering the same, the Ld. AR submitted that there is no evidence…