← All Phrases

“dumb documents”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 132946 judgments

The decision most relied on for dumb documents is CBI v. V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410), cited in 442 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on dumb documents

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.

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.

CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd.
83 Taxmann.com 161 · 2017 · High Court
172
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A or 153C, additions cannot be sustained if the material or transactions relied upon do not relate or pertain to the assessee. Regular books of accounts not unearthed during search do not constitute incriminating material to justify additions.

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.

CIT v. Sant Lal
118 Taxmann.com 432 · 2020 · High Court
154
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of entries in a diary seized from a third party if the diary is not found in the assessee's premises, not in the assessee's handwriting, and the revenue fails to provide corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the diary.

Ashwani Kumar v. ITO
39 ITD 183 · 1991 · High Court
122
citing judgments

For figures in a 'dumb document' to be treated as the assessee's income, the revenue must provide necessary evidence to prove that these figures represent income earned by the assessee and that the alleged documents have materialized into transactions.

Revenue in CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma
165 Taxmann.com 846 · 2024 · Supreme Court
118
citing judgments

Independent corroborative evidence is required for making additions to income based on entries in regular books of accounts or seized material. Unverified 'dumb documents' found during a search cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income without such corroboration.

Judgments citing dumb documents

DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Chennai, Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Pallipalayam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 629/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:628 & 629/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Income Tax, Vs. 5/6/183, Govindampalayam Central Circle - 2(2), Alampalayam, Pallipalayam 638 008. Chennai. [Pan: Abcpt-7700-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Both Dated 10.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Common Issue Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. The Ita Nos.628 & 629/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

absence of any corroborative evidence to attribute the entries to such a person. Such seized material is liable to be treated as a dumb document, which does not have any evidentiary value in respect of the entries found therein, unless corroborative evidence is available which can provide necessary reliable basis ... Revenue are dismissed 6.4.31 As already discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs, the seized material is in the nature of a dumb document which does not contain complete and unambiguous information to arrive at any conclusion based solely on the said material that the Appellant was in receipt

DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Chennai, Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Pallipalayam

ITA 628/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:628 & 629/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Vs.5/6/183, Govindampalayam Alampalayam, Pallipalayam 638 008. [Pan: Abcpt-7700-K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 23.07.2025 04.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Both Dated 10.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

absence of any corroborative evidence to attribute the entries to such a person. Such seized material is liable to be treated as a dumb document, which does not have any evidentiary value in respect of the entries found therein, unless corroborative evidence is available which can provide necessary reliable basis

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2830/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2830/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2019-20) Deputy Commissioner V/S. Mehta Emporium Of Income Tax- Central बिधम Jewellers Circle 8(3), Mumbai 101, Mehta Arch, S.V. Road, Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Opp. Natraj Market, Malad Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai 400064 Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfm2962N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Devendra Jain रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69A

DCIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 159 Taxmann.com 179. 20. On the basis of above, I hold that the loose paper is a “dumb” document due to following reasons: i. It is a random sheet not part of regular books of accounts; ii. It is not corroborated with transactions carried ... discussion I am of the view that the loose papers found and seized from the business premises of the appellant is nothing but a dumb document without having any evidentiary value which can be used against the appellant for making an addition u/s 69A of the I.T Act. The addition