← 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

Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 645/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

submission of the learned AR that Shri K. Srihari was only an employee of the company and, therefore, his statement has no evidentiary value cannot be accepted especially when it was categorically stated by Shri K. Srihari that the money was given to Sai Pranav Infra Projects Ltd., through cheques

M/S. Shivangi Oils Pvt. Ltd., Shahdol vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 8/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 234B

made by the A.O. by referring to the statement of Shri Padam Singhania. The statement obtained from Sh Padam Singhania has been retracted. The evidentiary value and addition made on the basis of statement has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand ... prompted the assessee to make declaration of undisclosed income of Rs.20 lacs. Mere reading of statement of assessee is not the assessment of evidentiary value of the evidence when such statement is self-incriminating. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, a wrong inference

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Shivangi Oil Pvt. Ltd., Shahdol

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 21/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 234B

made by the A.O. by referring to the statement of Shri Padam Singhania. The statement obtained from Sh Padam Singhania has been retracted. The evidentiary value and addition made on the basis of statement has been considered by various Hon'ble High Courts. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand ... prompted the assessee to make declaration of undisclosed income of Rs.20 lacs. Mere reading of statement of assessee is not the assessment of evidentiary value of the evidence when such statement is self-incriminating. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, a wrong inference

Umesh Ramesh Patil, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 3017/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Umesh Ramesh Patil, Cit (Appeals), Jai Malhar Builders & Office Of Asstt. Cit Central Developers Kalyan Padgha Vs. Circle 1, Thane-400604. Road, Near Gandhari Bridge Bapgaon, Bhiwandi-421 302. Pan No. Aavpp 4945 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 24BSection 80C

held that "the statement recorded (SC) wherein it was held that "the statement recorded during survey has no during survey has no evidentiary value". Hence the addition made evidentiary value". Hence the addition made by the Assessing officer based on the Sworn statement recorded by the Assessing officer based

Deep Malik, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 69

specifying and relationship between assessee's mother and donor. Further, undated affidavit without notarized or sworn in before magistrate doesn't have evidentiary value. Further, assessee has not provided the bank statement of donor to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. The document submitted by the assessee

Sagar Sanjeev Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1360/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Sagarsanjeevshetty Vs. Acit-25(1), A/1202, Plot No. 24, Room No. 202, 2Nd Rdp4 Sweet Home Chs Floor, Kautilya Ltd, Svp Nagar, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Versova Mhada, G-Block, Bkc, Andheri, Bandra East, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Celps8696R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat, L. Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 68

assesse is used for the business of partnership firm and the said account is duly audited by the Chartered accountant thus have evidentiary value 3. The assesse has already explained the cash credit in firm M/s Sea Prince Bar And Restaurant hence section 68 of Income

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S New Delta Gear Manufacturers Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 829/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.829/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. New Delta Gear Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3), 2, Palayakaran Street, Ekkattuthangal, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 097. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-3576-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T. N. Seetharaman (Advocate) -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 01-12-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. N. Seetharaman (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

restoration of assessment order. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the additions are backed by statement made u/s 132(4) which would have evidentiary value. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the agreement as found during the course of search proceedings was acted upon and therefore, the impugned additions would ... along with amount of cash paid to the extent of Rs.27.50 Crores was confirmed by Shri Selvakumar and Shri N. Elamaran. These statements have evidentiary value and therefore, this amount was rightly brought to tax. 4.4 The assessee, in its rejoinder to remand report, submitted that Ld. AO has merely

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S J Hotels Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 828/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.828/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. J. Hotels Private Limited बनाम Central Circle-2(3), 29, Tilak Street, T. Nagar, / Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj-9423-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 01-12-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14A

restoration of assessment order. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the additions are backed by statement made u/s 132(4) which would have evidentiary value. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the agreement as found during the course of search proceedings was acted upon and therefore, the impugned additions would

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Usha Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3862/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

treatment given by AO to all properties in the instance of 2 properties, admittedly not belonging to the impugned assessee, does not carry any evidentiary value. b) Without any other evidence in respect of the property under reference, it cannot be straight away presumed that in every property unaccounted cash

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3860/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

treatment given by AO to all properties in the instance of 2 properties, admittedly not belonging to the impugned assessee, does not carry any evidentiary value. b) Without any other evidence in respect of the property under reference, it cannot be straight away presumed that in every property unaccounted cash

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3859/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

treatment given by AO to all properties in the instance of 2 properties, admittedly not belonging to the impugned assessee, does not carry any evidentiary value. b) Without any other evidence in respect of the property under reference, it cannot be straight away presumed that in every property unaccounted cash

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3858/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

treatment given by AO to all properties in the instance of 2 properties, admittedly not belonging to the impugned assessee, does not carry any evidentiary value. b) Without any other evidence in respect of the property under reference, it cannot be straight away presumed that in every property unaccounted cash

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3831/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

treatment given by AO to all properties in the instance of 2 properties, admittedly not belonging to the impugned assessee, does not carry any evidentiary value. b) Without any other evidence in respect of the property under reference, it cannot be straight away presumed that in every property unaccounted cash

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3826/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

treatment given by AO to all properties in the instance of 2 properties, admittedly not belonging to the impugned assessee, does not carry any evidentiary value. b) Without any other evidence in respect of the property under reference, it cannot be straight away presumed that in every property unaccounted cash

Dy. CIT Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Femina Stock Management Company Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 850/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 850/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata Femina Stock Management Company Vs Ltd. 5Th Floor, Room No. 2 P23/24, Radha Bazar Street Tea Board Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacf3689H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 21, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

examine the person making this statement, lies upon the AO himself. A failure to discharge this 12 onus has the effect of diluting the evidentiary value of the said statements against the appellant. These remarks, of course, are without prejudice to the fact that the appellant, at a later date ... opportunity for cross-examination, has merit in it. The denial of such an opportunity for cross-examination has the legal effect of diminishing any evidentiary value that may be associated with these statements. It must not be forgotten that the appellant was searched and no evidence was found that would

Rishi Aggarwal, Noida vs. DCIT Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1643/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

absence of any substantive enquiry to validate the content of the paper with any supportive and corroborative material and evidence. The evidentiary value of loose paper which is unsigned, undated and unverified has been held to be highly questionable and has not been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Deepak Nagori, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1713/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

connivence of operators and other stakeholders just to gain LTCG/Long Term Capital loss. We cannot brush aside the report of SEBI which has evidentiary value and binding in nature. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has relied and referred to the report. Further, we can apply the salutary principles

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Core Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 1543/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Cc-5(4), M/S Core Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Gj-4, Sdf-Vii, Seepz Andheri Air India Building, Nariman Vs. (East), Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400096 Pan No. Aabcc 1946 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 69A

repair/loan has been recorded by the registered valuer in the repair/loan has been recorded by the registered valuer in the is having more evidentiary value as compared to valuation report is having more evidentiary value as compared to is having more evidentiary value as compared to statement of the employee

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

parties. Thus, the contents of sale deed are very well valid. The contention of the appellant regarding dispute, chain of document etc have no evidentiary value as the same are without any supporting value. The appellant and others had executed a registered sale deed within 3 months, which is treated ... property the appellant and 5 other persons were purchase parties in the registered agreement dated 27.08.2014. Thus the agreement found during search has high evidentiary value and the rate specified in the original agreement is the true value of the property. Ld CIT(A) further observed that very same

Hanuman Khedaria HUF, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 2, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 275/CTK/2023[ASST. YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2023

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela. C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market, Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela. Kachery Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca .R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/12 12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr
Section 131

Khader Khan Son (supra), the apex Court held that statement recorded during survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has no evidentiary value, as it does not empower any Income Tax Officer to examine on oath, as the assessment has to be made on Page