← 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

Dr. P. Dayananda Pai, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 150/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

CHDC have already settled the dispute in these two AYs before the SC. These entries and the contentions of the AO have no evidentiary value Page 25 of 39 in so far as AY 2005-06 is concerned. In paragraph 13.1.25 there is a reference to deposit in bank account

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 509/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.506, 508 & 509/Nag/2016 Assessment Years. : 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Vs Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Dy.Cit, Cir-2(2), Nagpur Flat No.2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, 97-98, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-12 Pan No. : Aqfps 2701 K & Cross Objection Nos.11, 13 & 14/Nag/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.506, 508 & 509/Nag/2016) Assessment Years. : 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Vs Dy.Cit, Cir-2(2), Nagpur Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Flat No.2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, 97-98, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-12 Pan No. : Aqfps 2701 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudesh Banthia, Ca सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT

presumption that no agreement related with transaction of property was found in the search and that loose paper which were unnumbered has no evidentiary value. The Id. CTT(A) 'While considering the grounds of appeal discussed the issue in detail and passed the following order: "6.6 I have carefully considered ... transaction in question. Thus according to the AR the notings of the deal on a loose paper sheets which un- numbered have no evidentiary value unless corroborated by any independent evidence. The AR thus pleaded that there exists independent evidences as regards to the payment made and received back

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 508/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.506, 508 & 509/Nag/2016 Assessment Years. : 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Vs Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Dy.Cit, Cir-2(2), Nagpur Flat No.2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, 97-98, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-12 Pan No. : Aqfps 2701 K & Cross Objection Nos.11, 13 & 14/Nag/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.506, 508 & 509/Nag/2016) Assessment Years. : 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Vs Dy.Cit, Cir-2(2), Nagpur Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Flat No.2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, 97-98, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-12 Pan No. : Aqfps 2701 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudesh Banthia, Ca सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT

presumption that no agreement related with transaction of property was found in the search and that loose paper which were unnumbered has no evidentiary value. The Id. CTT(A) 'While considering the grounds of appeal discussed the issue in detail and passed the following order: "6.6 I have carefully considered ... transaction in question. Thus according to the AR the notings of the deal on a loose paper sheets which un- numbered have no evidentiary value unless corroborated by any independent evidence. The AR thus pleaded that there exists independent evidences as regards to the payment made and received back