“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

Income Tax Officer- Ward-1/Jao, Nagercoil vs. Arulanandham Ber Syril Antow, Nagercoil

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. M.Ramesh Kumar, F.C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 40

certificate produced by the assessee. 16. It is a settled principle of law that revenue records and certificates issued by statutory authorities carry evidentiary value and must be given weightage unless it is bogus. The Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court, in a catena of decisions as rightly noted

Kasiredday Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 887/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

also find merit in the alternate contention of the assessee regarding the year of taxability. Even assuming that the seized document has some evidentiary value, income, if any, can be taxed only in the year in which it accrues or is received. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee

Kasiredday Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 886/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 885/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 884/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 883/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 882/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

Gargi Overseas Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 91/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumargargi Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 2623-A, Naya Bazar, Delhi Ward-10(1), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3165F

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

placed on the statement recorded during survey of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, the ld AR submitted that the survey statement does not have any evidentiary value and reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan

Amit Kumar Bajaj, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1309/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Kumar Bajaj Dcit-24(1), A-3001, Omkar, Off Dr. Piramal Chambers, Annie Besant Road, Near Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- Neelam Centre, Hanuman 400 012 Nagar, Worli, Maharashtra – 400 030 Pan/Gir No. Afrpb3442B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

from the broker M/s. Eureka Stock & Share Broking Services Ltd., the Assessing Officer specifically noted that the broker confirmation was unsigned, thereby diminishing its evidentiary value. iii. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite opportunities, the assessee did not file any cogent reply supported by 6 Amit Kumar Bajaj independent documentary ... contract notes, Demat statements and bank records. These contemporaneous documents emanate from independent third-party systems such as depositories and banks and carry higher evidentiary value than a broker’s letter. 27. The Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee did not rebut the findings of the Investigation Wing

Ldm Agro Foods Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4347/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri R S Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 37(1)

referred to in the Re-Assessment order having been recorded at the back of the Appellant Company is of no relevance and have no evidentiary value for want of proper opportunity for cross-examination. 4.3 That the disallowance of purchases from M/s Om Trading Co., without rejection of the audited

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Gaurav Dalmia, Delhi

In the result, additional ground 1 under Rule 27 of the assessee is

ITA 4162/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

Whether the retraction of statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, made much later and without contemporaneous evidence, can override the evidentiary value of such statements in the absence of any allegation of coercion or mis-recording therein. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred ... part of the books of account of the assessee. 27. The judicial interpretation of statement recorded u/s 132(4) shows that it has evidentiary value but only if the same is corroborated by any evidence/material. Such statement by themselves do not constitute incriminating material as held

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Pune vs. Sachin Motilal Mutha, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2211/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2211/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Vs Sachin Motilal Mutha, Officer, H-4, Kalyan Co. Op. Hsg. Sco., Ward-11(1), Pune. Shankarsheth Road, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune – 411004. Pan: Ahdpm2649F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Sachin Motilal Mutha (Assessee) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 21.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144Bof The Act, Dated 25.03.2023. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

opportunity of Cross examination. In these facts revenue’s reliance on the statement is misplaced and in this case the impugned statement has no evidentiary value. 7.3 Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. Ground No.2 : 8. The assessee has sold shares of various companies during the year

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

accommodation entries in the form of share capital/unsecured loan/long term capital gain/short term capital gain/loss…”. The Assessee has made detailed submissions to disregard the evidentiary value of such shell company list prepared by the Investigation Wing. The Assessee Company stated that declaring a company as a shell company ... transactions of the Assessee to come to a conclusion that the same are bogus in nature. Further, the scheme of Income Tax has different evidentiary values of statements recorded under different sections for e.g. a statement recorded u/s. 132(4) is presumed to be correct in the hands

Premji Bhurlal Gala, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Rang 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & SatishFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

that the original statement was invalidated. The retraction, being after a considerable lapse of time and not backed by substantial justification, cannot override the evidentiary value of contemporaneous statements recorded under oath. iii. Lack of Cross-Examination: of cross-examination, the assessment was was completed under Section

DCIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik vs. Shree Sai Properties, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

under-mentioned decisions wherein the principle that information collected behind the back of the assessee and not tested by cross-examination has no evidentiary value is laid down. (i) M/s. Andaman Timber Industries-vs-Comm. of Central Excise Kolkata 281 CTR 241 (SC) (2015). (1) (ii) H.R. Mehta-vs- ACIT ... cannot be made merely on the basis of notings on the loose sheet papers which are in the nature of “dumb documents” having no evidentiary value. The onus lies on the Department to collect the evidence to corroborate the notings on the loose sheets. In the present case

Deputy Commissioner, Chennai vs. Natarajan, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2660/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 2661 & 2660 Chny 2024 िनधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2019-20

For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 292CSection 69

115BBE of the Act. 7. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts, examined the evidentiary value of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and followed the settled legal position that additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis ... course of such collection were relied upon without granting the assessee any opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person. As a result, the evidentiary value of such material is seriously impaired and cannot be treated as credible proof to establish that the assessee had, in fact, received any cash loan

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce-1(4), Chennai vs. Ramanathan Viswanathan, Chennai

ITA 1597/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

liability on the person whose name appears therein, unless\ncorroborative evidence is brought on record. This is a basic rule of\nprudence. The evidentiary value of regular account book, the Hon’ble\nApex Court has held in V.C. Shukla, [1998] 3 SCC p.433, in para 37, by\napproving the view ... these notings in his own\nproprietary capacity. It is to be kept in mind that, the statement(s)\nrecorded u/s 132(4) carries evidentiary value and therefore stands on a\nhigher pedestal to statement(s) recorded u/s 131 of the Act.\n40. The Ld. AR thereafter pointed out that, another

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Ramanathan Viswanathan, Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1556/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

liability on the person whose name appears therein, unless corroborative evidence is brought on record. This is a basic rule of prudence. The evidentiary value of regular account book, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in V.C. Shukla, [1998] 3 SCC p.433, in para 37, by approving the view ... these notings in his own proprietary capacity. It is to be kept in mind that, the statement(s) recorded u/s 132(4) carries evidentiary value and therefore stands on a higher pedestal to statement(s) recorded u/s 131 of the Act. 40. The Ld. AR thereafter pointed out that, another

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1324/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1323/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250