← 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

Rathi Bars Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals for the AYs 2009-10 to 2013-14 in the case of Rathi Special Steels Ltd

ITA 1252/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

without confronting the statement of Amit Gupta with the assessee company.” 7. Ld. AO however held that the statement of Amit Gupta has huge evidentiary value as the same was recorded u/s 132(4) and in support, he has cited various decisions in his assessment order. Thereafter, he has proceeded ... case of the assessee, however, he submitted that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) even though in a different search has a great evidentiary value and AO can utilize such information gathered from the statement to use against the assessee. In his statement, he has categorically stated that

Rathi Special Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals for the AYs 2009-10 to 2013-14 in the case of Rathi Special Steels Ltd

ITA 1163/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

without confronting the statement of Amit Gupta with the assessee company.” 7. Ld. AO however held that the statement of Amit Gupta has huge evidentiary value as the same was recorded u/s 132(4) and in support, he has cited various decisions in his assessment order. Thereafter, he has proceeded ... case of the assessee, however, he submitted that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) even though in a different search has a great evidentiary value and AO can utilize such information gathered from the statement to use against the assessee. In his statement, he has categorically stated that

Rathi Bars Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals for the AYs 2009-10 to 2013-14 in the case of Rathi Special Steels Ltd

ITA 1162/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

without confronting the statement of Amit Gupta with the assessee company.” 7. Ld. AO however held that the statement of Amit Gupta has huge evidentiary value as the same was recorded u/s 132(4) and in support, he has cited various decisions in his assessment order. Thereafter, he has proceeded ... case of the assessee, however, he submitted that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) even though in a different search has a great evidentiary value and AO can utilize such information gathered from the statement to use against the assessee. In his statement, he has categorically stated that

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Yogesh J. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2004-05
Section 271(1)(c)

Bharat Shah Group of Cases had dealt with the issue and held, that the loose sheet found is dumped document having no evidentiary value, by observing as under: "38. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is submitted that since the impugned seized papers are undated, have no acceptable narration ... bear the signature of the assessee or 'any other party, they are 'in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as a sole basis for' determination of undisclosed income of the assessee. When dumb documents like the present loose sheets of papers are recovered

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

narration and do not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they are in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as a sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee. When dumb documents like the present loose sheets

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

narration and do not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they are in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as a sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee. When dumb documents like the present loose sheets

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

narration and do not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they are in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as a sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee. When dumb documents like the present loose sheets

Smt. Gurjeet Kaur, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- IV (2), Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 628/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

Also, we find, that a similar view, that a photocopy of a document in the absence of the original document has no evidentiary value had been arrived at in various judicial pronouncements as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R before us, viz. (i). Moosa M. Madha & Azam ... opportunity to cross-examine the said person, all the more for no fault no on her part, therefore, his statement lost its evidentiary value and could not have been pressed into service by the A.O for drawing of adverse inferences in the case of the assessee. We, thus

Smt. Gurjeet Kaur, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- IV (2), Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 627/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

Also, we find, that a similar view, that a photocopy of a document in the absence of the original document has no evidentiary value had been arrived at in various judicial pronouncements as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R before us, viz. (i). Moosa M. Madha & Azam ... opportunity to cross-examine the said person, all the more for no fault no on her part, therefore, his statement lost its evidentiary value and could not have been pressed into service by the A.O for drawing of adverse inferences in the case of the assessee. We, thus

Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Bathinda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda

ITA 115/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

received a consideration of Rs. 1.21 crores on the sale of the land in question vide an “agreement to sell”, dated 22.06.2010 had no evidentiary value. Also, the Pr. CIT was not inspired by the claim of the assessee that the “agreement to sell” in question was registered with

M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1676/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1676/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Translands Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.451, Aayakar Vs. Office No. A-702, 7Th Floor, Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Everest Nivara Infotech Park, Mumbai-400020. Plot No.D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0036B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Which Was Reopened By Ao On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction I.E. Merely On The Basis Of Information Received In Letter From Dy. Dit (Inv.) In Respect Of Search & Seizure U/S 132 Of The Act In The Case Of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt Without Application Of His Own Mind Before Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Reopened By Ao Without Taking The Requisite Approval From The Principal Commissioner U/S 151(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Recording The Satisfaction That It Is A Fit Case For Reopening On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded By The Ld Ao As No Exact Copy Of The Said Approval Has Been Given To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt recorded u/s 132(4) which has been retracted subsequently and hence it does not have any evidentiary value. 8. The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions made by AO u/s 68 without appreciating that no opportunity to cross examine Mr. Vipul Bhatt

ITO, Ward-32(2), New Delhi vs. Mukhtiar Singh, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2342/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07
Section 254(2)

applied in the case of seller. 3. The Ld. C1T(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that seized documents have an evidentiary value. From the seized documents it is seen that amount stated therein to be paid by DD/Cheque exactly matches the amount mentioned in the Registered Deed which

Prabhu Kanimozhi, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Erode

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 622/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: HonʼBle Shri Mahavir Singh & HonʼBle Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 44A

addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises. Further, the statements made during survey proceedings would not hold much evidentiary value. The assessee has placed on record ledger of construction account wherein the investment made up-to 31.03.2013 is shown as Rs.45 Lacs whereas

Ponmahal Income, Karur vs. ACIT, Trichy

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1236/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 69ASection 69B

basis of loose unsigned and undated computer sheets. These sheets were to be considered in the nature of ‘dumb document’ having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee. No fact-based finding has been rendered

Ponmahal Income, Karur vs. ACIT, Trichy

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1235/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 69ASection 69B

basis of loose unsigned and undated computer sheets. These sheets were to be considered in the nature of ‘dumb document’ having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee. No fact-based finding has been rendered

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9158/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Yadav was never a director in M/s White Collar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the statement of Mr. Ram Yadav has no evidentiary value for making the 40 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. addition. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted ... ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and therefore his statement has no evidentiary value. So far as the statement of Mr. Himanshu Verma is concerned, he has stated that accommodation entries given in the form of loan/share capital

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9157/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Yadav was never a director in M/s White Collar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the statement of Mr. Ram Yadav has no evidentiary value for making the 40 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. addition. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted ... ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and therefore his statement has no evidentiary value. So far as the statement of Mr. Himanshu Verma is concerned, he has stated that accommodation entries given in the form of loan/share capital

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9156/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Yadav was never a director in M/s White Collar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the statement of Mr. Ram Yadav has no evidentiary value for making the 40 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. addition. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted ... ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and therefore his statement has no evidentiary value. So far as the statement of Mr. Himanshu Verma is concerned, he has stated that accommodation entries given in the form of loan/share capital

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9155/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Yadav was never a director in M/s White Collar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the statement of Mr. Ram Yadav has no evidentiary value for making the 40 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. addition. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted ... ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and therefore his statement has no evidentiary value. So far as the statement of Mr. Himanshu Verma is concerned, he has stated that accommodation entries given in the form of loan/share capital

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9154/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Yadav was never a director in M/s White Collar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the statement of Mr. Ram Yadav has no evidentiary value for making the 40 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. addition. The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted ... ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and therefore his statement has no evidentiary value. So far as the statement of Mr. Himanshu Verma is concerned, he has stated that accommodation entries given in the form of loan/share capital