← 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

Charminar Bottling Company Private Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1344/HYD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07 Charminar Bottling Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Secunderabad. Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc2858E (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Kanika Jain Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2006-07 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - Iii, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/07/2013 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Smt. Kanika JainFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 69

loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives etc. have revealed that the transactions noted on documents were not genuine and have no evidentiary value and that details in these loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive etc. do not comply with the requirement of the Indian ... able to show and substantiate the nature and source of receipts as well as nature and reason of payments and have failed to prove evidentiary value of loose papers and electronic documents within the legal parameters. The Commission has also observed that Department has not been able to make

M/S Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 630/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Bini Builders P. Ltd. Dcit-Cr 7(3) 655, 6Th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-3447-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-49/It- 163/2017-18 Dated 17/12/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

retracted within a span of 7 days. It is settled law that statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same are backed by credible evidences. This position has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S Moongipa Development & Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 627/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.627/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. Dcit-Cr 7(3) 655, 6Th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-1616-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-49/It- 165/2017-18 Dated 05/12/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

retracted within a span of 7 days. It is settled law that statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same are backed by credible evidences. This position has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case