← 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

Dy CIT CC 7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Global Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

ITA 7440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

अिधकरण “B” "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। म"। म"। म"। आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण

Jasmin K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 983/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 983/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jasmin K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-7827-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1140/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashish K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), Ajmera House, 4Th Floor R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम Pathakwadi, L.T.Marg Old Cgo Building, / Vs. Mumbai – 400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-9075-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1113/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Minal M. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Adepa-9661-N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 539/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Avani J. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Addpa-9331-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143(3)Section 153A

entire statement stood fully retracted vide affidavits dated 02/08/2013 and 14/08/2015 explaining the entire chain of events. Therefore, the recorded statement would have no evidentiary value. 5.5 Regarding search findings in the case of Shri Shirish C. Shah, the assessee submitted that he had absolutely no connection with Shri Shirish ... Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (238 ITR 177) wherein Hon'ble Court refused to give any evidentiary value to the statement made by the assessee u/s 132(4) as the department could not find any unaccounted money, article or thing or incriminating document either