← All Phrases

evidentiary value

Natural JusticeEvidenceEvidence5,387 judgments

The decision most relied on for evidentiary value is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713), cited in 962 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on evidentiary value

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT
125 ITR 713 · 1980 · Supreme Court
962
citing judgments

Adverse material or evidence collected by the Assessing Officer behind the assessee's back, without providing it to the assessee or affording an opportunity for cross-examination, has no evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon to make additions.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
352 ITR 480 · 2013 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

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.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
300 ITR 157 · 2008 · High Court
452
citing judgments

A statement recorded under duress during a survey, if subsequently retracted, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for an income-tax assessment; the assessment should instead rely on audited accounts.

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.

Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT
37 ITR 151 · 1959 · Supreme Court
372
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be made based solely on suspicion, surmises, or conjectures. The income tax department requires evidence or material to justify an addition, as suspicion, however strong, does not constitute proof.

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)
294 ITR 49 · 2007 · Supreme Court
299
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

Judgments citing evidentiary value

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), PUNE vs. RAMESH PANNALAL RANKA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 2944/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.31 & 32/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ramesh Pannalal Ranka Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Plot No.42, Premnagar Society, Vs. Pune Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aazpr9440C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Ramesh Pannalal Ranka Pune Vs. Plot No.42, Premnagar Society, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aazpr9440C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Ca Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Amit Bobde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 24-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2026

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and CA Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

said cash receipts along with supporting documentary evidences. In absence of any proper explanation from the side of the assessee or supporting documents having evidentiary value, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation given by the assessee and made addition of Rs.1,01,00,000/- to the total income ... Therefore, the subsequent statement of STES that the voucher was not approved or nor recorded in its books does not by itself dislodge the evidentiary value of a signed receipt in the assessee’s name. He accordingly upheld the addition by observing as under: 44. Aggrieved with such order

GURMUKH DAS,DELHI vs. ACIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE-8), DELHI

In the result, the two appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4533/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4532/Del/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gurmukh Das, Acit, Central Circle-8, Room बिधम G-17, 3Rd Floor, Saket, South Delhi, No.333, 3Rd Floor, Dgit(I&Ci), Ara Vs. Delhi. Centre, Ground Floor, E-2, Pan No.Anrpd1084F Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi. अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4533/Del/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gurmukh Das, Acit, Central Circle-8, Room बिधम G-17, 3Rd Floor, Saket, South Delhi, No.333, 3Rd Floor, Dgit(I&Ci), Ara Vs. Delhi. Centre, Ground Floor, E-2, Pan No.Anrpd1084F Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi. अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ansh Kumar Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2026 15.04.2026 उद्घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per Sanjay Awasthi:

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

search and therefore clearly qualify as incriminating material within the meaning of search assessment proceedings. 3.1.2. Statements recorded during search are valid and have evidentiary value It is further submitted that Shri Shiv, a key employee of Shri Prateek Chitkara, in his statement recorded on oath under section

GURMUKH DAS,DELHI vs. ACIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE-8), DELHI

In the result, the two appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4532/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4532/Del/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gurmukh Das, Acit, Central Circle-8, Room बिधम G-17, 3Rd Floor, Saket, South Delhi, No.333, 3Rd Floor, Dgit(I&Ci), Ara Vs. Delhi. Centre, Ground Floor, E-2, Pan No.Anrpd1084F Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi. अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4533/Del/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gurmukh Das, Acit, Central Circle-8, Room बिधम G-17, 3Rd Floor, Saket, South Delhi, No.333, 3Rd Floor, Dgit(I&Ci), Ara Vs. Delhi. Centre, Ground Floor, E-2, Pan No.Anrpd1084F Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi. अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ansh Kumar Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2026 15.04.2026 उद्घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per Sanjay Awasthi:

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

search and therefore clearly qualify as incriminating material within the meaning of search assessment proceedings. 3.1.2. Statements recorded during search are valid and have evidentiary value It is further submitted that Shri Shiv, a key employee of Shri Prateek Chitkara, in his statement recorded on oath under section

YASH PAL,KAITHAL vs. ITO, WARD-2, KAITHAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 76/CHANDI/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.76/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Dcit – Central Circle - 1 बनाम/ Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor, Ludhiana, Punjab – 142027 Opposite Bvm School Vs. Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-5690-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.191/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit – Central Circle - 1 M/S Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor, Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan Opposite Bvm School Ludhiana, Punjab - 142027 Vs. Kitchlu Nagar Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-5690-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08-04-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5. Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 147Section 69BSection 69C

facts and circumstances of the case. 3 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate, that the said digital data has no evidentiary value in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court that no reliance could be placed on ‘whatsapp chat’/ ‘digital data ... opinion that firstly the valuation reports in the names of third parties, as obtained by the Assessing Officer from the different banks have no evidentiary value since they were neither found from the premises of the assessee and not related to the assessee. As regards, the valuation report

HOMELIFE BUILDCON PVT. LTD., SUNVIEW ENCLAVE, AYALI KALAN, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 86/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.86/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Dcit - Central Circle - 1 बनाम/ Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor, Opposite Bvm School Vs. Ludhiana, Punjab – 142027 Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-5690-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.374/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit –Centralcircle - 1 M/S Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor, Opposite Bvm School Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan Vs. Kitchlu Nagar Ludhiana Ludhiana, Punjab - 142027 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-5690-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-04-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5. Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

fact that the said MOU was acted upon by any of the party. This being an unsigned document does not hold any evidentiary value. Even the stated land as mentioned in the MOU continues to exist in the name of the farmers. Further, the amount as received by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HOMELIFE BUILDCON PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 374/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.86/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Dcit - Central Circle - 1 बनाम/ Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor, Opposite Bvm School Vs. Ludhiana, Punjab – 142027 Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-5690-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.374/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit –Centralcircle - 1 M/S Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor, Opposite Bvm School Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan Vs. Kitchlu Nagar Ludhiana Ludhiana, Punjab - 142027 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-5690-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-04-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5. Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

fact that the said MOU was acted upon by any of the party. This being an unsigned document does not hold any evidentiary value. Even the stated land as mentioned in the MOU continues to exist in the name of the farmers. Further, the amount as received by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , LUDHIANA vs. HOMELIFE BUIDLCON PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 191/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.76/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Dcit – Central Circle - 1 बनाम/ Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor, Ludhiana, Punjab – 142027 Opposite Bvm School Vs. Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-5690-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.191/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit – Central Circle - 1 M/S Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor, Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan Opposite Bvm School Ludhiana, Punjab - 142027 Vs. Kitchlu Nagar Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-5690-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08-04-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5. Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 147Section 69BSection 69C

facts and circumstances of the case. 3 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate, that the said digital data has no evidentiary value in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court that no reliance could be placed on ‘whatsapp chat’/ ‘digital data ... opinion that firstly the valuation reports in the names of third parties, as obtained by the Assessing Officer from the different banks have no evidentiary value since they were neither found from the premises of the assessee and not related to the assessee. As regards, the valuation report

RANJANA KALTA,SHIMLA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1060/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

relying on various case laws. The same stood rejected by Ld. AO on the ground that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value and the presumption of Sec. 132(4A) and Sec.292C would apply. As per Annexure A-27 as found during search on Omaxe group ... Shri Inder Kalta and Shri Rajinder Sabharwal has no relevance to the property as purchased by the assessee. This agreement does not hold any evidentiary value. This agreement is not signed by any of the party and the same even do not mention about any cash component in the deal

RANJANA KUMARI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1058/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

relying on various case laws. The same stood rejected by Ld. AO on the ground that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value and the presumption of Sec. 132(4A) and Sec.292C would apply. As per Annexure A-27 as found during search on Omaxe group ... Shri Inder Kalta and Shri Rajinder Sabharwal has no relevance to the property as purchased by the assessee. This agreement does not hold any evidentiary value. This agreement is not signed by any of the party and the same even do not mention about any cash component in the deal

RANJANA KUMARI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1057/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

relying on various case laws. The same stood rejected by Ld. AO on the ground that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value and the presumption of Sec. 132(4A) and Sec.292C would apply. As per Annexure A-27 as found during search on Omaxe group ... Shri Inder Kalta and Shri Rajinder Sabharwal has no relevance to the property as purchased by the assessee. This agreement does not hold any evidentiary value. This agreement is not signed by any of the party and the same even do not mention about any cash component in the deal

RANJANA KUMARI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1056/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

relying on various case laws. The same stood rejected by Ld. AO on the ground that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value and the presumption of Sec. 132(4A) and Sec.292C would apply. As per Annexure A-27 as found during search on Omaxe group ... Shri Inder Kalta and Shri Rajinder Sabharwal has no relevance to the property as purchased by the assessee. This agreement does not hold any evidentiary value. This agreement is not signed by any of the party and the same even do not mention about any cash component in the deal

KALTA LIQUORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1051/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

relying on various case laws. The same stood rejected by Ld. AO on the ground that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value and the presumption of Sec. 132(4A) and Sec.292C would apply. As per Annexure A-27 as found during search on Omaxe group ... Shri Inder Kalta and Shri Rajinder Sabharwal has no relevance to the property as purchased by the assessee. This agreement does not hold any evidentiary value. This agreement is not signed by any of the party and the same even do not mention about any cash component in the deal

KALTA LIQUORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1050/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

relying on various case laws. The same stood rejected by Ld. AO on the ground that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value and the presumption of Sec. 132(4A) and Sec.292C would apply. As per Annexure A-27 as found during search on Omaxe group ... Shri Inder Kalta and Shri Rajinder Sabharwal has no relevance to the property as purchased by the assessee. This agreement does not hold any evidentiary value. This agreement is not signed by any of the party and the same even do not mention about any cash component in the deal