← 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

M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 2B, Ii Floor, Royal Court, Central Circle-3(2), No.41, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-4608-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (Itp)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04-01-2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (ITP)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the excel sheets that were recovered during the search were only loose sheets which have no evidentiary value regarding concealment of income and hence no search assessment can be completed under section 153A solely relying upon loose sheets. 3. The learned Commissioner ... treating certain receipts as deemed income. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that entries in the computer have no evidentiary value without corroborative evidences and the duty of collecting the corroborative evidences rests upon the department and this duty has not been discharged by the department

M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 2B, Ii Floor, Royal Court, Central Circle-3(2), No.41, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-4608-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (Itp)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04-01-2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (ITP)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the excel sheets that were recovered during the search were only loose sheets which have no evidentiary value regarding concealment of income and hence no search assessment can be completed under section 153A solely relying upon loose sheets. 3. The learned Commissioner ... treating certain receipts as deemed income. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that entries in the computer have no evidentiary value without corroborative evidences and the duty of collecting the corroborative evidences rests upon the department and this duty has not been discharged by the department

M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 2B, Ii Floor, Royal Court, Central Circle-3(2), No.41, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-4608-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (Itp)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04-01-2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (ITP)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the excel sheets that were recovered during the search were only loose sheets which have no evidentiary value regarding concealment of income and hence no search assessment can be completed under section 153A solely relying upon loose sheets. 3. The learned Commissioner ... treating certain receipts as deemed income. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that entries in the computer have no evidentiary value without corroborative evidences and the duty of collecting the corroborative evidences rests upon the department and this duty has not been discharged by the department

M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 2B, Ii Floor, Royal Court, Central Circle-3(2), No.41, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-4608-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (Itp)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04-01-2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (ITP)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the excel sheets that were recovered during the search were only loose sheets which have no evidentiary value regarding concealment of income and hence no search assessment can be completed under section 153A solely relying upon loose sheets. 3. The learned Commissioner ... treating certain receipts as deemed income. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that entries in the computer have no evidentiary value without corroborative evidences and the duty of collecting the corroborative evidences rests upon the department and this duty has not been discharged by the department

M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2020 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Kumaralayam Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 2B, Ii Floor, Royal Court, Central Circle-3(2), No.41, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-4608-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (Itp)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04-01-2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, (ITP)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the excel sheets that were recovered during the search were only loose sheets which have no evidentiary value regarding concealment of income and hence no search assessment can be completed under section 153A solely relying upon loose sheets. 3. The learned Commissioner ... treating certain receipts as deemed income. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that entries in the computer have no evidentiary value without corroborative evidences and the duty of collecting the corroborative evidences rests upon the department and this duty has not been discharged by the department