← 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

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1523/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132

does not belong to the appellant. 3(c). The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the impugned five promissory notes have no evidentiary value since they do not contain the signatures of witnesses. 3(d) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the impugned seized material ... both the parties. Therefore, he submitted that the addition cannot be made on the basis of dumb document which does not have any evidentiary value. 20. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Assessing Officer submitted that the document found during the course of search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Pearl Printers and Publishers (P) Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1042/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1042/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-2(4), बनाम/ Vs. Chennai-34. 8/16, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1042/Chny/2023) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Dcit 8/16, Mogappair West, Vs. Central Circle-2(4), Chennai-600 058. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit) –Ld. Dr " थ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh (Advocates)- Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that sworn statement was recorded u/s.132(4) during the course of search on 21/01/2020 and the same is having evidentiary value, where as she has furnished sworn affidavit retracting the statement on 29/09/2021, nearly after 20 months from the date of recording statement. This clearly ... collect any corroborative evidence. Since the aforesaid document would require corroborative evidences and the same, on standalone basis, would have no evidentiary value and therefore, this ground was also allowed 3.5 The assessee also raised another legal issue that since no incriminating material was found from the possession

Vijay Kantilal Vora, Vadodara vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1821/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kantilal Vora The Dcit 201, Shrushti Flats, Vs Circle-4(2)(1), Opp. Geb Sub Station, Vadodara Gotri Road, Vadodara-390021 Pan: Aakpv3542 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4 Vadodara (Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 30.1.2018, Relating To The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred As “The Act” For The Assessment Year2011-12. 2. Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: Vijay Kantilal Vora Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

held as bogus in earlier paras], the sales, given the high rates of such penny stock, with no real buyers, are bogus. The evidentiary value of payment of STT cannot make a non-genuine transaction, a genuine one. [iv] The scrip is a penny stock, purchased at a low price