← 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

Sanket Industries Limited, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Jalna

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

ITA 1958/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1958/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sanket Industries Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Flat No.101, Bhoomi Apartment, Officer, Ward-2, 1St Floor, Nutan Laxmi Chs, Plot Jalna. No.9, Jvpd Scheme, Ville Parle (W), N.S. Road, No.8, Mumbai – 400056 Pan: Aafcs6118M Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11-03-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1[Ld.Cit(A)], Aurangabad Order Dated 27.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The History Of Notices By Itat Issued For Hearing In This Case Is As Under: Date Of Hearing Present / Absent 03.04.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 15.12.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.02.2022 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 15.02.2022 None Present For The Appellant

Sanket Industries Limited genuineness of the transaction. The confirmation letters without explaining the sources of money do not have any evidentiary value. The Ld.CIT(A) heavily relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Kamal Motrs (131 Taxman 155) held as “onus is on the assessee

ITO Ward-4(1)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Valley Comtrade Pvt Ltd ( Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R with Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 13(1)(d)Section 68

Indeed the AO held that observation about entry operators operating those companies are general observation. Thus no adverse inference can be drawn and evidentiary value can be placed on the statement of entry provider specially without providing opportunity of cross examination. 6.2 The AO relied heavily on inspector report that ... recorded by him so that the propriety of the whole exercise of discretion by him is visible. 13.3 The next aspect arise is the evidentiary value of such commission report. In this regard we note that courts have held that it is not binding on the court. As such