Common Cause v. Union of India

77 Taxmann.com 245Supreme Court of India2017#305 most cited

What is Common Cause v. Union of India authority for?

Additions under the Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on entries in loose sheets, dumb documents, or mere sworn statements without independent, reliable, and cogent corroborating evidence. Uncorroborated loose papers are not admissible evidence on their own, even if the original context was criminal investigation.

267

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Common Cause v. Union of India · loose papers · dumb documents · corroborating evidence · independent evidence · sworn statements · Section 69A · Section 132 · search assessment · admissibility of evidence · evidence income tax · retracted statement

Also reported as

222 ITR 260

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 69ASection 153CSection 69Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

hundi transactiontax recovery officerjewellery found during searchretraction of statementdumb documentspeak credit theoryretracted statementsection 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 132(4a)section 292cloose papers

Judgments citing Common Cause v. Union of India

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Phozo Digital Press Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [PAN :AAGCP7803H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Phozo Digital Press Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [PAN :AAGCP7803H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत…

Arun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 458/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 456/Hyd/20 2014-15 Sri Tarun Kumar Asst. Commissioner Goyal of Income Tax, 457/Hyd/20 2016-17 Central Circle-3(2), Sri Arun Kumar 458/Hyd/20 2016-17 Hyderabad Goyal For Assessee : Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR Date of Hearing : 01-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : The instant three appeals pertain to two assessees,…

Tarun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1)2, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 457/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 456/Hyd/20 2014-15 Sri Tarun Kumar Asst. Commissioner Goyal of Income Tax, 457/Hyd/20 2016-17 Central Circle-3(2), Sri Arun Kumar 458/Hyd/20 2016-17 Hyderabad Goyal For Assessee : Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR Date of Hearing : 01-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : The instant three appeals pertain to two assessees,…

Tarun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 456/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 456/Hyd/20 2014-15 Sri Tarun Kumar Asst. Commissioner Goyal of Income Tax, 457/Hyd/20 2016-17 Central Circle-3(2), Sri Arun Kumar 458/Hyd/20 2016-17 Hyderabad Goyal For Assessee : Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR Date of Hearing : 01-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : The instant three appeals pertain to two assessees,…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Bangalore vs. Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Udupi

ITA 2456/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru

ITA 2374/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru vs. Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Udupi

ITA 2455/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru vs. Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Udupi

ITA 2454/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru

ITA 2376/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru

ITA 2375/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru

ITA 2373/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru vs. Mr. Rohan Monterio, Mangaluru

ITA 2357/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

Mr. Subhakar Dombayya Kotian, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru

ITA 2257/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. Property Infratech India Private Limited, Mangaluru

ITA 2356/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. Om Sai Riddhi Siddhi Developers, Mumbai

ITA 2334/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

Mr. Subhakar Dombayya Kotian, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru

ITA 2256/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru vs. Shri Walter Noronha, Mangalore

ITA 1630/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ce of cogent evidence in support of entries in loose sheet, no adverse conclusion can be drawn. Appreciating the same, the Hon'ble CIT (A) deleted the same in page 16 para 5.13 of his Order. 65. Further, we rely on the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (77 Taxmann.com 245) wherein the Apex Court has held that loose sheets found during the search were inadmissible as evidence. 66. In the case of Devilal Gherilal Shah v. D. CIT ([1995] 52 TTJ (Ahd.)), the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that no name or date was mentioned in the seized document. In such cases, it is very difficult to say that the assesse purchased…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd

ITA/2/2020HC Delhi08 Jan 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 21(4)Section 6(5)Section 8

…03, Central Bureau of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410, Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India &Ors,. Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:59:05 Signature Not Verified CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 17 of 56 (2017) 11 SCC 731, Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397, State of Bihar vs Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) 8 SCC 164 and Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Ors., 2024 INSC 92. 36. He submitted that the learned ASJ wrongly relied on Naval Kishore v NIA, (2019) SCC OnLine Del 8711, wherein it was specifically stated that the observations made we…

The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam vs. Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 55/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos. 27 to 31/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2009-10 Jose Thomas, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Padijareveettil, Income-tax, Central Circle, Puthenveedu, Kottayam. Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta-691 523. PAN:ADCPT 9216G] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 32 to 35/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2007-08 Smt. Gracy Babu, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Padijareveettil, Income-tax, Central Circle, Puthenveedu, Kottayam. Adoor P.O., Pathanamth…