← 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

Vinod Kumar Bajaj, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-32, New Delhi

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

ITA 2189/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanvinod Kumar Bajaj, Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, Shivaji Enclave Road, Central Circle 32, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110027. (Pan : Aadcr0962Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Amit Garg, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 Date Of Order : 20.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 15.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Rejecting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Under Section 153Ar.W.S 143(3) Is Illegal & Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Having Valid Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 69A

part of the cash received by the Bajaj group from the persons whose identity has been mentioned in code name in the loose paper seized as page no. 10 of Exhibit 21 of Annexure AS-3 of Party no. 3A. 9.27. Your honour while para ... impugned assessment order, Ld. AO has tried to link the loose paper containing the code name pasted on. page no. 10 of Exhibit 21 of Annexure AS-3 of Party no.3A with another loose paper seized from the same premises and also pasted on page no, 10 of Exhibit

Halwasiya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/LKW/2022[F.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Halwasiya Properties Private Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow Limited, Halwasiya Court, Vs. New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow- 226001 226001 Pan:Aaach9708D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act Passed On 23.09.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Is Without Proper Opportunity & Contrary To The Principles Of Audi Alteram Partem And, Therefore, The Same Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Cit(A), Nfac Is Not Justified In Treating The Loan Of Rs.50,00,000/- Taken By The Appellant As Fictitious Loan. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,25,000/- For Alleged Accommodation Entry Of Loan @ 2.5% & Subjecting To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gayasuddin, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

there was no justification to treat the same as bogus loan and secondly, additions made on the basis of presumption drawn from noting on loose papers, cannot be incriminating for drawing adverse reference. 8. On the other hand, Shri Gayasuddin, ld. CIT DR (hereinafter referred