← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Guntur

Appeals are dismissed and the two Cross Objections of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 186/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 185 & 186/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No.3-29-40/4, 2Nd Lane, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Krishna Nagar, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur-522006. Guntur-522 007. Pan: Achpb 2189 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 18 & 19/Viz/2022 आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 185 & 186/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No.3-29-40/4, 2Nd Lane, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Krishna Nagar, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur-522006. Guntur-522 007. Pan: Achpb 2189 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant In Appeal) (""यथ"/ Respondent / Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

case of Pr. CIT vs. Admine Construction (P) Ltd., reported in 99 Taxmann.com 45 (SC). There was no positive evidence such as loose papers, vouchers or agreement between the appellant and M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram found at the premises of the appellant that would confirm the action

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Guntur

Appeals are dismissed and the two Cross Objections of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 185/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 185 & 186/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No.3-29-40/4, 2Nd Lane, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Krishna Nagar, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur-522006. Guntur-522 007. Pan: Achpb 2189 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 18 & 19/Viz/2022 आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 185 & 186/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No.3-29-40/4, 2Nd Lane, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Krishna Nagar, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur-522006. Guntur-522 007. Pan: Achpb 2189 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant In Appeal) (""यथ"/ Respondent / Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

case of Pr. CIT vs. Admine Construction (P) Ltd., reported in 99 Taxmann.com 45 (SC). There was no positive evidence such as loose papers, vouchers or agreement between the appellant and M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram found at the premises of the appellant that would confirm the action

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal v. TRO [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.), during search proceedings in case of 'D Group', some loose papers were seized wherein certain amounts were written against name of assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of said amount as undisclosed income in name of assessee ... corroborative evidence was found to suggest that assessee had actually received said amount, no addition could be made merely on basis of noting in loose papers found during search proceedings in case of 'D Group' against name of assessee. 6.3 In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/RJT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal v. TRO [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.), during search proceedings in case of 'D Group', some loose papers were seized wherein certain amounts were written against name of assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of said amount as undisclosed income in name of assessee ... corroborative evidence was found to suggest that assessee had actually received said amount, no addition could be made merely on basis of noting in loose papers found during search proceedings in case of 'D Group' against name of assessee. 6.3 In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/RJT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal v. TRO [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.), during search proceedings in case of 'D Group', some loose papers were seized wherein certain amounts were written against name of assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of said amount as undisclosed income in name of assessee ... corroborative evidence was found to suggest that assessee had actually received said amount, no addition could be made merely on basis of noting in loose papers found during search proceedings in case of 'D Group' against name of assessee. 6.3 In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala