← 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

Dlh Kamla Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1373/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit Cen. Cir. -3(4), Dlh Kamla Developers 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti बनाम/ Vimal, P. M. Road, Vile Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Parle East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 057 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahfd0790K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/153A For Ay 2013-14 & Section 143(3) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

vide letter dated 18.03.2016. In view of the said retraction statement, the original statement of Shri Jitendra Jain does not have any evidentiary value and therefore should not have been relied upon by the AO to make the said addition. 11 I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 DLH Kamla Developers

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

have any locus standi to give any statement in relation to the alleged lender companies and therefore such a statement does not have any evidentiary value to make any relevant conclusions against the appellant. Also, a copy of the statements relied upon by the Id. A.O has not been provided ... matural justice. In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that any evidence used at the back of the appellant does not have any evidentiary value and cannot be therefore used or held against the appellant. In this regard, Your Honour may note that section

Devendra Rajnikant Ladhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circ;E-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 178/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadala & Shri Gagan Goyaldevendra Rajnikant Ladhani, 1, Om Building, Opp. Rishi Vihar Complex, Bolinj Road, Virar (W), District-Palghar-401303 Pan: Abfpl5079C ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16X, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : Sh. Nimesh Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 30.12.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.3,82,84,000/- Made U/S 69A Of The It. Act, 1961 As Unexplained Money On Account Of Cash Found At The Residence & From The Bank Lockers Of The Appellant During The Course Of 2 Ita No. 178/Mum/2021- Devendra Ranjikant Ladhani

For Appellant: Sh. Subhodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Sh. Nimesh Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

this cash flow statement has been prepared after the search and therefore, the entries are only suggestive and not Confirmatory in nature and the evidentiary value of the same is suspecting at the best and cannot be taken at face value.” 8. This submission of assessee cannot be ignored