CBI v. V.C. Shukla

3 SCC 410Supreme Court of India1998#161 most cited

What is CBI v. V.C. Shukla authority for?

Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.

442

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CBI v. V.C. Shukla · evidentiary value · loose sheets · dumb documents · Section 34 Evidence Act · Section 292C · admissibility of evidence · books of account · uncorroborated evidence · Section 132(4A)

Also reported as

138 Taxmann 1903 AIR 410

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153CSection 292CSection 153ASection 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

dumb documentssection 132(4a)section 292csection 34section 269tsection 158bdloose papersonus of proofsection 269sincome tax settlement commissiondocuments seizedsection 269ss

Judgments citing CBI v. V.C. Shukla

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 795/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

…Ravi Prasad. without any reference to the finance business of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee, further referring to certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC), submitted that, loose sheets or diaries are not books of accounts, and on the basis of such evidences, no additions can be made. Further, the assessee and his family members are into the finance business out of their agricultural income, and the same has been offered to tax by his father and also by the assessee HUF. Therefore, once again mak…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…relied on the following decisions: a) CIT(A) v Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) b) DCIT v Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 469 ITR 197 (Kar) c) Common Cause (A Registered Society) v UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) d) CBI v V.C.Shukla and Others [1998] 3 SCC 410 It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material or other corroborative evidence to show that the assessee had indeed made unaccounted purchases from MJPL. In fact, even the statements recorded from Shri.Suresh Kumar Khatri and ITA Nos.1996 to 1999 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22) M/s. Sabari Diamonds & Je…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…relied on the following decisions: a) CIT(A) v Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) b) DCIT v Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 469 ITR 197 (Kar) c) Common Cause (A Registered Society) v UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) d) CBI v V.C.Shukla and Others [1998] 3 SCC 410 It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material or other corroborative evidence to show that the assessee had indeed made unaccounted purchases from MJPL. In fact, even the statements recorded from Shri.Suresh Kumar Khatri and ITA Nos.1996 to 1999 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22) M/s. Sabari Diamonds & Je…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…relied on the following decisions: a) CIT(A) v Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) b) DCIT v Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 469 ITR 197 (Kar) c) Common Cause (A Registered Society) v UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) d) CBI v V.C.Shukla and Others [1998] 3 SCC 410 It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material or other corroborative evidence to show that the assessee had indeed made unaccounted purchases from MJPL. In fact, even the statements recorded from Shri.Suresh Kumar Khatri and ITA Nos.1996 to 1999 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22) M/s. Sabari Diamonds & Je…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…relied on the following decisions: a) CIT(A) v Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) b) DCIT v Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 469 ITR 197 (Kar) c) Common Cause (A Registered Society) v UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) d) CBI v V.C.Shukla and Others [1998] 3 SCC 410 It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material or other corroborative evidence to show that the assessee had indeed made unaccounted purchases from MJPL. In fact, even the statements recorded from Shri.Suresh Kumar Khatri and ITA Nos.1996 to 1999 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22) M/s. Sabari Diamonds & Je…

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…of specific diaries which were contradictory. Accepting of contents of a third-party diary without independent corroboration was against law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Case [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) and CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 and thus apparent from record. 9. As per ratio of judgment in Shri Rashesh Manhar Bhansali vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, supra, it is well settled principles of law that non-consideration of detailed submissions would result in a mistake apparent from record in the order. 10. In view of above material facts and well settled principles of la…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources." 6.3.23 As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third party premise. In order to properly appreciate the issue, it is useful to refer to the following extract from the decision of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources." 6.3.23 As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third party premise. In order to properly appreciate the issue, it is useful to refer to the following extract from the decision of…

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

…ayments recorded in the books/diary/register cannot form the sole basis for holding such entries as receipts/income of the persons in whose name such entries are recorded unless corroborative evidence is found establishing such fact (CBI vs. V C Shukla & Ors. 3 SCC 410). 5.4 In view of the above, the addition made by the revenue, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is without any legal basis and is deleted. Relief is allowed to the appellant on substantive basis.” 22. It is relevant to state that order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions made in Assessment Year 2007-08 has been accepted by Revenue and…

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

…ayments recorded in the books/diary/register cannot form the sole basis for holding such entries as receipts/income of the persons in whose name such entries are recorded unless corroborative evidence is found establishing such fact (CBI vs. V C Shukla & Ors. 3 SCC 410). 5.4 In view of the above, the addition made by the revenue, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is without any legal basis and is deleted. Relief is allowed to the appellant on substantive basis.” 22. It is relevant to state that order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions made in Assessment Year 2007-08 has been accepted by Revenue and…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

ITA 410/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…ose paper in question does not disclose the names of the parties, nature of the transaction, or any confirmatory evidence of receipt. In the absence of such material, the sheet is at best a dumb document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 has held that loose sheets by themselves, without corroboration, cannot be treated as substantive evidence of undisclosed income. This principle has been followed consistently in several rulings, including Common Cause v. Union of India (394 ITR 220, SC) and various Hon'ble High Courts. 12.3 On the other hand, the Department's reliance on the asses…

Bysani Srinath Mamatha, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 407/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…ose paper in question does not disclose the names of the parties, nature of the transaction, or any confirmatory evidence of receipt. In the absence of such material, the sheet is at best a dumb document. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 has held that loose sheets by themselves, without corroboration, cannot be treated as substantive evidence of undisclosed income. This principle has been followed consistently in several rulings, including Common Cause v. Union of India (394 ITR 220, SC) and various Hon’ble High Courts. 12.3 On the other hand, the Department’s reliance on the asses…

Bysani Adinarayaguptha Srinath, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 402/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…ose paper in question does not disclose the names of the parties, nature of the transaction, or any confirmatory evidence of receipt. In the absence of such material, the sheet is at best a dumb document. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 has held that loose sheets by themselves, without corroboration, cannot be treated as substantive evidence of undisclosed income. This principle has been followed consistently in several rulings, including Common Cause v. Union of India (394 ITR 220, SC) and various Hon’ble High Courts. 12.3 On the other hand, the Department’s reliance on the asses…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri Apparao Mukkamala, Usa

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

…de the addition without bringing any corroborative evidence on record other than the 'image of handwritten scribbling' and could not have fastened any liability on the Respondent as held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CBI v. V. C. Shukla & Ors. (1998 3 SCC 410). 8. The Id. AO failed to appreciate that a challenge to jurisdiction (like invoking section 148 instead of 153C of the Act when the entire proceedings was solely based on incriminating material seized in the case of a third party search) goes to the very root of the matter and can be raised at any stage of the case as held by the Hon'ble Supreme C…

Suresh Kumar Banthia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 835/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Suresh Kumar Banthia Dcit, Central Circle-4(3) 147 Banthia House Mahatma Aayakar Bhavan, Poorva, 110 Gandhi Road, Burra Bazar, Shantipally, E.M. By Pass, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpb2317L Assessee By : S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana, Ars Revenue By : Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.09.2025

For Appellant: S.M. Surana, &For Respondent: Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…g to show that even in any impounded paper there were same/similar entries. In defense of his argument the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: - i. ACIT Vs. Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur) ii. CBI Vs. VC Shukla 3 SCC 410 iii. Rakesh Goyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ (Del) 151 iv. Mohan Foods Ltd Vs. DCIT (2010) 123 ITD 590 (Del) v. CIT vs. SM Agarwal [2007]293ITR43(DELHI) vi. Jayanti Lal Patel [1998] 233 ITR 588 (Raj). vii. NK Malhan Vs. DCIT (2004) 91 TTJ (Del) 938. viii. CIT Vs. Chandra Chemouse P. Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 98 (Raj.) Suresh Kumar Banthia; A.Y. 2020-21…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…ddition could be made merely on suspicion, conjectures and surmises. The unsubstantiated diary jottings cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any evidence towards undisclosed income. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla 3 SCC 410 ACIT Vs. Expert Particle Board and Others ITA No.139 /RJT/2021 and 142/RJT/2021 (AY : 2019-20) with CO No.05/RJT/2022 10 has held that “file containing loose sheets or papers are not books” and hence entry therein are not admissible u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Similarly, in the present case, the impounded material having certain entries in…

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…ddition could be made merely on suspicion, conjectures and surmises. The unsubstantiated diary jottings cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any evidence towards undisclosed income. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla 3 SCC 410 ACIT Vs. Expert Particle Board and Others ITA No.139 /RJT/2021 and 142/RJT/2021 (AY : 2019-20) with CO No.05/RJT/2022 10 has held that “file containing loose sheets or papers are not books” and hence entry therein are not admissible u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Similarly, in the present case, the impounded material having certain entries in…

Suresh Kumar Reddy Krishnapuram, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 538/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…308 to 311/Hyd./2025. presumption u/sec.132(4A) (ii), in respect of the truth of contents of the document, cannot be drawn. In this regard, he relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau ofInvestigation vs., VC Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 (SC) and also in the case of Common Cause vs., Union of India [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 15. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to lose sheets found during the course of search submitted that, apart from the fact that, the seized loose sheet no.5 lacks evidentiary value, the same is also not reliable when considered in the company of…

Suresh Kumar Reddy Krishnapuram, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 537/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…308 to 311/Hyd./2025. presumption u/sec.132(4A) (ii), in respect of the truth of contents of the document, cannot be drawn. In this regard, he relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau ofInvestigation vs., VC Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 (SC) and also in the case of Common Cause vs., Union of India [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 15. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to lose sheets found during the course of search submitted that, apart from the fact that, the seized loose sheet no.5 lacks evidentiary value, the same is also not reliable when considered in the company of…

Skandhanshi Infra Projects, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 534/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…308 to 311/Hyd./2025. presumption u/sec.132(4A) (ii), in respect of the truth of contents of the document, cannot be drawn. In this regard, he relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau ofInvestigation vs., VC Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 (SC) and also in the case of Common Cause vs., Union of India [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC). 15. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to lose sheets found during the course of search submitted that, apart from the fact that, the seized loose sheet no.5 lacks evidentiary value, the same is also not reliable when considered in the company of…