← 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

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 375/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

whether the documents are held to be belonging to or pertaining to the assessee. Because all such documents have been rejected as unreliable and dumb documents by the Tribunal. 7. Mr. Pradeep Dinodia, submitted that in both round of proceedings undertaken at the level of ITAT were against orders passed ... have been recorded that the common documents impounded during the course of search on the UPDA or its Secretary Mr. R. K. Miglani are dumb documents and no adverse inference can be drawn from these documents much less that any expenditure worth making addition u/s 69C of the Act which

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 374/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

whether the documents are held to be belonging to or pertaining to the assessee. Because all such documents have been rejected as unreliable and dumb documents by the Tribunal. 7. Mr. Pradeep Dinodia, submitted that in both round of proceedings undertaken at the level of ITAT were against orders passed ... have been recorded that the common documents impounded during the course of search on the UPDA or its Secretary Mr. R. K. Miglani are dumb documents and no adverse inference can be drawn from these documents much less that any expenditure worth making addition u/s 69C of the Act which

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 641/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

whether the documents are held to be belonging to or pertaining to the assessee. Because all such documents have been rejected as unreliable and dumb documents by the Tribunal. 7. Mr. Pradeep Dinodia, submitted that in both round of proceedings undertaken at the level of ITAT were against orders passed ... have been recorded that the common documents impounded during the course of search on the UPDA or its Secretary Mr. R. K. Miglani are dumb documents and no adverse inference can be drawn from these documents much less that any expenditure worth making addition u/s 69C of the Act which

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. Jethmal Mehta, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for AYs

ITA 8987/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 68

Hence, the said seized document becomes Page 15 of 20 ITA Nos.8985 to 8887/Del/2019 C.O. Nos. 160 to 162/Del/2022 DCIT vs. Jethmal Mehta merely dumb documents in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be held to be having control over what the third person ... part of the books of account of the assessee and that they do not constitute admissible evidence and are to be merely discarded as dumb documents as there are no other corroborative material or evidence to link those documents. 11. Before us, the Ld. DR vehemently relied on the letter

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. Jethmal Mehta, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for AYs

ITA 8986/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2013-14
Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 68

Hence, the said seized document becomes Page 15 of 20 ITA Nos.8985 to 8887/Del/2019 C.O. Nos. 160 to 162/Del/2022 DCIT vs. Jethmal Mehta merely dumb documents in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be held to be having control over what the third person ... part of the books of account of the assessee and that they do not constitute admissible evidence and are to be merely discarded as dumb documents as there are no other corroborative material or evidence to link those documents. 11. Before us, the Ld. DR vehemently relied on the letter

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. Jethmal Mehta, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for AYs

ITA 8985/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2012-13
Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 68

Hence, the said seized document becomes Page 15 of 20 ITA Nos.8985 to 8887/Del/2019 C.O. Nos. 160 to 162/Del/2022 DCIT vs. Jethmal Mehta merely dumb documents in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be held to be having control over what the third person ... part of the books of account of the assessee and that they do not constitute admissible evidence and are to be merely discarded as dumb documents as there are no other corroborative material or evidence to link those documents. 11. Before us, the Ld. DR vehemently relied on the letter

Swapnil Rathi, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2 (1), Indore

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

ITA 413/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Swapnil Rathi, Dcit-2(1) 17Bf, Scheme No.74C, Indore Vs. Vilay Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afwpr 6790 K Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2023

Section 132Section 132ASection 147Section 153CSection 68

erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO under Section 68 amounting to Rs. 74353000 towards unexplained investment based on alleged dumb documents without any corroborating material on record. 2. The learned CIT(A) and AO failed to appreciate that there is no evidence of receipt or investment

R P Wood Products Pvt Ltd, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

accord with the letters and spirit of the said section. The appellant cannot be visited with penalty only on the basis of deaf and dumb documents with which the Assessee was confronted during the course of search as well as in the assessment proceedings and based on which the assessee ... offered additional income solely for giving a quietus to the irrelevant issues raised by the Department based on the said deaf and dumb documents. The appellant also submits that initiation of penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act in the assessment order should not be sustained

R P Wood Products Private Limited, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

accord with the letters and spirit of the said section. The appellant cannot be visited with penalty only on the basis of deaf and dumb documents with which the Assessee was confronted during the course of search as well as in the assessment proceedings and based on which the assessee ... offered additional income solely for giving a quietus to the irrelevant issues raised by the Department based on the said deaf and dumb documents. The appellant also submits that initiation of penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act in the assessment order should not be sustained

Ghanshyam Tak, Naya Ghar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

accord with the letters and spirit of the said section. The appellant cannot be visited with penalty only on the basis of deaf and dumb documents with which the Assessee was confronted during the course of search as well as in the assessment proceedings and based on which the assessee ... offered additional income solely for giving a quietus to the irrelevant issues raised by the Department based on the said deaf and dumb documents. The appellant also submits that initiation of penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act in the assessment order should not be sustained

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Lalman Yadav, Gurgaon

ITA 7061/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Lalman Yadav Vs. Acit, Flat No. 401-402, Central Circle-16 Mahalaxmi Cghs Ltd., New Delhi Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Pan : Aazpy5305R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

business or to record transactions of regular nature. The well settled legal position is that a non speaking document or as called the dumb documents, without any corroborative material, evidence on record and finding that such document has materialized into transactions giving rise to income of the assessee which ... Delhi (Central)-II v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 TAXMAN 476 (DELHI) upheld the order of the tribunal wherein it was held that Ad-Hoc/ Dumb Documents without any ITA No. 5869 & 7061/Del/2018 Lalman Yadav, Gurgaon 8 corroborative evidence/finding that the alleged documents have materialized into transactions cannot be deemed

Lalman Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi

ITA 5869/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Lalman Yadav Vs. Acit, Flat No. 401-402, Central Circle-16 Mahalaxmi Cghs Ltd., New Delhi Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Pan : Aazpy5305R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

business or to record transactions of regular nature. The well settled legal position is that a non speaking document or as called the dumb documents, without any corroborative material, evidence on record and finding that such document has materialized into transactions giving rise to income of the assessee which ... Delhi (Central)-II v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 TAXMAN 476 (DELHI) upheld the order of the tribunal wherein it was held that Ad-Hoc/ Dumb Documents without any ITA No. 5869 & 7061/Del/2018 Lalman Yadav, Gurgaon 8 corroborative evidence/finding that the alleged documents have materialized into transactions cannot be deemed

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Subodhkumar Ashokkumar Gupta, Vesu, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Subodhkumar Ashokkumar Gupta, Surat. A/2/801, Nandni Appartment, Near- Jolly Residency, Vesu, Surat-395007. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acjpg7129F Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca 31/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

away lightly. Also, the seized document itself and more so because of the nature of entries contained therein does not make it as a dumb documents. The author of the said seized documents have admitted to have written the said document in their own hand writing and also explained

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. Poonam Developers LLP, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 320/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

manner without any evidences supporting the allegations and/or the calculations as to how the yearly figures are derived on the basis of impounded undated dumb documents. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, complete on-money receipts have been added to the total income of the appellant even when

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. Poonam Developers LLP, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 319/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

manner without any evidences supporting the allegations and/or the calculations as to how the yearly figures are derived on the basis of impounded undated dumb documents. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, complete on-money receipts have been added to the total income of the appellant even when

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. Poonam Developers LLP, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 318/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

manner without any evidences supporting the allegations and/or the calculations as to how the yearly figures are derived on the basis of impounded undated dumb documents. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, complete on-money receipts have been added to the total income of the appellant even when

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 286/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

manner without any evidences supporting the allegations and/or the calculations as to how the yearly figures are derived on the basis of impounded undated dumb documents. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, complete on-money receipts have been added to the total income of the appellant even when

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 285/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

manner without any evidences supporting the allegations and/or the calculations as to how the yearly figures are derived on the basis of impounded undated dumb documents. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, complete on-money receipts have been added to the total income of the appellant even when

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 284/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

manner without any evidences supporting the allegations and/or the calculations as to how the yearly figures are derived on the basis of impounded undated dumb documents. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, complete on-money receipts have been added to the total income of the appellant even when

C.M. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, Delhi

ITA 6202/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

copy of objections of assessee filed on 20.07.2016 submitting that the case was reopened only on the basis of a dumb documents which has not even confronted to the assessee and further submitting that assessee neither paid any cash to M/s Cardio Techovention nor department has produced any documentary evidence