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 366,314 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

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 455/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…t be used to draw adverse inference. Such documents, being loose, unauthenticated and unexplained, are of no evidentiary value." (para 14, 20 and 27 of the judgment) :-23-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny/2025 & SA Nos.41 to 45/Chny/2025 CBI v. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410] "Loose sheets of paper or data files not forming part of books of account and not maintained in the regular course of business are not admissible as evidence. They are 'dumb documents' unless substantiated." 36. The ld.AR contended that applying the above principles to the present case, the Revenue’s reliance on the digital entry in the pen drive…

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 454/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…t be used to draw adverse inference. Such documents, being loose, unauthenticated and unexplained, are of no evidentiary value." (para 14, 20 and 27 of the judgment) :-23-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny/2025 & SA Nos.41 to 45/Chny/2025 CBI v. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410] "Loose sheets of paper or data files not forming part of books of account and not maintained in the regular course of business are not admissible as evidence. They are 'dumb documents' unless substantiated." 36. The ld.AR contended that applying the above principles to the present case, the Revenue’s reliance on the digital entry in the pen drive…

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 453/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…t be used to draw adverse inference. Such documents, being loose, unauthenticated and unexplained, are of no evidentiary value." (para 14, 20 and 27 of the judgment) :-23-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny/2025 & SA Nos.41 to 45/Chny/2025 CBI v. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410] "Loose sheets of paper or data files not forming part of books of account and not maintained in the regular course of business are not admissible as evidence. They are 'dumb documents' unless substantiated." 36. The ld.AR contended that applying the above principles to the present case, the Revenue’s reliance on the digital entry in the pen drive…

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

…nal cannot look into it for any purpose. No 65B certificate, hash value, or chain-of-custody document has been filed here; consequently, the chat extracts fail at the threshold of admissibility. 1.9.iv In Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, provisions of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, was considered for the purposes of the expression "entries in books of account", "books of account". In this case, which is also known as 'Jain Hawala Diaries case", Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that entries in notebooks are admissible evidence u/s.34 of the Evidence Act but loose sheet…

Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1643/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, Vs Acit, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East Of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaept8805A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca, Harish, Ca, Neetu Jain, Ca & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 69A

…he entries in the diary maintained by Jain Brothers were inadmissible and a bundle of sheets/papers which are detachable and replaceable at a moments notice, can hardly be characterized as ground of evidence of some books of accounts. CBI v Shukla [VC] (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC)]. c) Addition was deleted by the CIT(A) on this basis that the loose- papers on the basis of which the addition are made by the AO are without any particulars or date or name etc. and, therefore, these are dump-papers and cannot be made the basis for addition. This finding of the CIT(A) could not be controverted by the DR of the Revenue by bri…

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CC-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1144/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…only. This tribunal co-ordinate bench's decision Nishan Constructions Vs. ACIT ITA No.1502/Ahd/2015; after considering the hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in Common Cause, Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) and CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) holds that such loose sheets deserves to be treated as a dumb documents only since not revealing full details about the dates containing lack of further particulars and therefore, ought not to be made basis of an addition. Similar other judicial precedents ACIT Vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd., (2017) [184 TTJ 469] (Mumbai) & ITO Vs. Kranti Impex Pvt.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

…evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources." 6.4.23 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3190/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…e from undisclosed sources." As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of 6.4.23 CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3189/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…e from undisclosed sources." As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of 6.4.23 CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3188/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…e from undisclosed sources." As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of 6.4.23 CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Co…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi vs. Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, Delhi

ITA 2782/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73(1)

…as been upheld those additions based on gathered from premises of third party cannot be considered for making additions unless the AO has carried out independent finding based on such material: - Add. CIT Vs Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) - CBI vs V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410) - Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (Vide ITA NO. 2588/Ahd/2012) - DCIT Vs H.S. Chnadramouli (ITA No. 1551/Bang/2012) - M/s Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Yakub Perfumers Pvt. Ltd (ITA NO.388/LKW/2013) - DCIT Vs Pawan Kumar Agarwal (ITA 413 LKW/2012) - M/s Bhola Nath Radha Krishan 9ITA 5149/Del/2012) - Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal (149 ITR 548). 5.7 In view of the above I…

Shri Bhanwar Lal, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 417/JODH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…evidence, more so when the contents were not interlinked. The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 that “file containing loose sheets of papers are not books” and hence entries therein are not admissible u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 3.6. It is held in PCIT Vs. Delco India (P) Ltd. (2016) 67 taxmann.com 357 (Del), held that "no addition could be made under Section 68 on the basis of loose papers found during search in this case indicating a…

Rishi Agarwal, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 266/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

…person unless the truthfulness of such entry is established. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC) has quoted at page no. 226 from its own decision in the case of CBI v. V. C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) as under:- “It has further been laid down in V. C. Shukla (supra) as the value of entries in the books of account, that such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and they are only corroborative evidence. It has been held even then independent evidence is…

Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia, Nagpur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income (Central) Circle - 1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

…of a transaction. No corroborative evidences was brought on record. The unilateral signed agreement without any corroborative evidence is a dumb document and no reliance can be placed on such dumb document for making any addition [CBI vs. V. C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410]. As far as reply filed by the Ld. DR is concerned it is stated that no corroborative evidence have been brought on record by the Ld. DR. Further, the DAS is just a photocopy and the actual sale deed was never executed on the basis of the DAS, hence the DAS does not have any legal sanctity. The DR is trying to improve the case of the AO by stating…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.675 to 680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2021-22 v. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd., The DCIT, No.123, Usman Road, Central Circle-1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [PAN: AAACL 1523 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respon…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.675 to 680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2021-22 v. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd., The DCIT, No.123, Usman Road, Central Circle-1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [PAN: AAACL 1523 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respon…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.675 to 680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2021-22 v. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd., The DCIT, No.123, Usman Road, Central Circle-1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [PAN: AAACL 1523 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respon…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 264/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon'Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon'Ble Accountant, Member

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…, we feel that the questions which are sought to be referred arise out of a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on pure appreciation of evidence." 9.6. We also refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors. 1998 (3 SCC 410) (SC), where Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been explained and held that entries in a file containing loose sheets of papers were not "book" and hence entries therein were not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. Further, it was also held in this case that entries in books of account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to c…

Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 249/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Pan – Aaepy4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…cer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year." The language of the Law is vague and subjective, thus making us rely on an Apex court decision in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla ((1998) 3 SCC 410), wherein the relevant portion reads thus: "Collection of sheet fastened or bound together so as to form material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as books." In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 69A of the Act, which reads thus: "69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money,…

Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centra Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) 801,8Th Floor & 800 Sq.Ft Space On 8Th Floor Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Royal Park, Ramdaspeth Aayakar Bhavan Nagpur - 440012 Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines Nagpur – 440002 Pan – Abdpc0828J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar 801,8Th Floor & 800 Sq.Ft Space On 8Th Floor Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Royal Park, Ramdaspeth Aayakar Bhavan Nagpur – 440012 Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines Nagpur – 440001 Pan – Abdpc0828J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…, we feel that the questions which are sought to be referred arise out of a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on pure appreciation of evidence." 9.6. We also refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors. 1998 (3 SCC 410) (SC), where Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been explained and held that entries in a file containing loose sheets of papers were not "book" and hence entries therein ITA No.264/NAG/2022 Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar were not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. Further, it was also held in this case that entries in books of acc…