← All Phrases

“loose papers”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 1322,159 judgments

The decision most relied on for loose papers is Society v. UOI (394 ITR 220), cited in 493 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on loose papers

Society v. UOI
394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court
493
citing judgments

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

CBI v. V.C. Shukla
3 SCC 410 · 1998 · Supreme Court
442
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court
391
citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma
159 Taxmann.com 179 · 2024 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper containing jottings, not shown to be part of regularly maintained books of accounts, do not constitute incriminating material for initiating assessment under section 153C. The satisfaction note required for 153C proceedings must specify the assessment year to which the alleged incriminating material belongs.

Common Cause v. Union of India
77 Taxmann.com 245 · 2017 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Girish Chaudhary
296 ITR 619 · 2008 · High Court
175
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Central-2 v. Umesh Ishrani
108 Taxmann.com 437 · 2019 · High Court
168
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on entries in loose papers found during a search without conducting any independent inquiry or verification from the alleged seller or developer. Reliance solely on digital records without corroborative evidence is insufficient for an addition.

CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah
307 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
166
citing judgments

Additions on account of on-money receipts cannot be justified solely based on loose papers or 'sauda-chithis' without evidence of actual payment or a clear indication of a completed transaction within those documents.

Judgments citing loose papers

Jai Prakash Virmani, Faridabad vs. Dc ACIT Cent Faridabad 2 New, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4764/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljai Prakash Virmani, Dcit/Acit, Shop No.7, Sector 58, Central Circle, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Vs. Faridabad. Pan-Ahrpp4614R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.K. Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 04.09.2024 In Appeal No.10863/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Asst. Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Survey U/S 133A Was Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 23.01.2019. During The Course Of Survey Certain Loos Papers Were Found & Impounded Having Entries Of Cash Withdrawals & The Undisclosed Expenditure On Constructions Of House, Besides Other Documents Were Also Found Jai Prakash Virmani Vs. Dcit /Acit & Impounded. Based On These Entries Assessee Had Offered Additional Income In The Statements Recorded During The Course Of Survey Of Rs.1,28,34,958/-. Thereafter, Vide Letter Dated 20.01.2020, The Assessee Retracted Partly From The Additional Income So Offered During The Survey. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Completed Wherein The Ao Observed That Income Offered By The Assessee Towards Unexplained Investment In The Construction Of House Is Taxable U/S 69 Of The Act. The Ao Further Observed That The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Are Applicable On The Income Of Rs.17,66,380/- Offered By The Assessee On Account Of Undisclosed Investment In Constructions House.

Section 115BSection 133ASection 234BSection 250Section 69

return of income filed on 31.10.2019. The sole issue is with respect to the investment of Rs.17,63,380/- found noted in the loose papers impounded during the course of survey in the construction of house property which was claimed by the assessee as application out of income offered

G.S.Express Pvt.Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-2, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

ITA 633/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

also including various digital data on the four hard disks that had been seized, it was difficult for the assessee to compile all the loose papers and registers in order to compute the surrendered income of the assessee. Further, one of the employees of the company Sh. Amit Mishra ... brain stroke and copies of his medical certificates were attached. It was further submitted that in the said seized Day Books / registers and loose papers, wherein day to day 5 A.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Pvt. Ltd. expenses of sites had been recorded, there were various expenditures that were liable

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Bannariamman Educational Trust, Coimbatore

ITA 3357/CHNY/2024[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3310 To 3314/Chny/2024 िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 M/S.Bannari Amman- Educational Trust, 1212, Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641 018. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaatb 1235 C] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3353 & 3354 To 3358/Chny/2024 िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 & Cross-Objection No.42/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.3353/Chny/2024) िनधारणवष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai. V. M/S.Bannari Amman- Educational Trust, 1212, Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aaatb 1235 C] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual)/Ld.Ar Department By : Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, Cit/Dr सुनवाईकतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2025 घोषणाकतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ यायपीठ, चेई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वक, याियक