“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

Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5125/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 68

when original statement was retracted by the assessee and the assessee had satisfactorily explained the delay in retraction, its evidentiary value gets reduced. In the given circumstances, it would be duty of Ld.AO to make water tight case by making necessary enquires and by bringing cogent evidences on record

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd., New Dlehi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4226/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

arise. Therefore, the statement of the managing director of the assessee, recorded patently under section 132(4) of the Act, does not have any evidentiary value. This provision embedded in sub- section (4) is obviously based on the well established rule of evidence that mere confessional statement without there being

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd., New Dlehi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4223/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Arizona Venutres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1428/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

statement of Shri Tarun Goyal is concerned, the assessee submitted that the same were recorded around seven years back which cannot have any evidentiary value for the transaction under taken for Assessment Year 2012-13. Assessing Officer has made additions without making inquiry on his own in this regard

Vikas, Prop. M/S. Neha Enterprises, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), Delhi

ITA 3803/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3803/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Vikas, Prop. M/S Neha Enterprises, Vs Acit, 76, Ssi, Co-Operative Industrial Circle-34(1), Estate, G. T. Karnal Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110033 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepv2363D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. DR

Section 133

facts & law, for making addition of Rs.3,07,79,543/- overlooking the considered legal position that the statement recorded during survey has no evidentiary value.” Stock found Excess by Rs.5,02,30,400/- 3. Facts relevant for adjudication to the issue before us are that a survey

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

rival contentions of the appellant and AO. It is undisputed fact that the statement recorded U/S 132(4) of the Act has a better evidentiary value but it is also a settled position of law that the addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There ... rival contentions of the parties. It is undisputed fact that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has a better evidentiary value but it is also a settled position of law that the addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax - 04, New Delhi vs. Hcl Comnet Systems and Services Ltd

ITA/66/2021HC Delhi24 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

instead of ‘THUKRAL’. 2.8 Respondent No. 2 filed the logo as well as calendar to show use of the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ having no evidentiary value as all the said documents are forged and manipulated by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has also placed on record three bills, namely bill

ACIT 25 (3), Mumbai vs. Pravin Viram Satra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5505/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 40

bear the certificate of the assessee or any authorized person and they are in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value. Infact these dumb documents are further evince interest in developing the said project. Moreover, when the ld CITA grants relief on the ground that in remand report ... certificates which can prove conclusively that assessee had earned undisclosed or unaccounted income. Further this impounded the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value. Accordingly, it was held that the said documents may not be the sole basis for determination of the income of the assessee. We find that

Vandana Sethi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 1614/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Section 50CSection 54Section 54E

Vandana Sethi vs. ITO view that since the agreement to sale was an unregistered document, the same did not have much evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer proceeded to compute the long term capital gain as under: Long Term Capital Gain (Taxable) Sale Value of 50% share of Residential Flat

Sungrow Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment is irrelevant and cannot be considered as having any evidentiary value against the assessee so as to initiate the reassessment proceedings against the assessee. He has referred to PB-32 which is letter filed by the assessee before ... retraction statement of Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta in the reasons. Therefore, statement recorded on oath of Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta would have no evidentiary value against the assessee because he himself has retracted from his statement recorded on oath. Therefore, on the day of initiation of reassessment proceedings by recording

Raman Sood, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4642/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 148

filing of the return of income and so it cannot be inferred that the assessee did not maintain any books of account. Further the evidentiary value of the VAT returns cannot be simply be brushed aside specially when the same were brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer

A.C.I.T., Circle-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Overtop Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 686/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 131Section 68

force and they have not provided any accommodation entry to the company. Thus, the statement so made and retracted Subsequently does not contain any evidentiary value and in absence of any corroborative evidence cannot be used for the purpose of making the addition under any circumstances. Therefore, those statements ... have any evidentiary value to place reliance on them for the purpose of making the addition in the hands of the On the second count the Ld.AO alleged that the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transaction, During the course

Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

ITA 3131/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

Section 132(4)

also submitted that the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act have been duly affirmed on oath and has evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The ld DR submitted that the pen drive contained the details of cash outgoings also included marriage expenses of the main promoters

Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC -6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee except ITA

ITA 3129/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

Section 132(4)

Holy Remedies (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corp. Ward 2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is treated as

ITA 282/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.282/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Income Tax Officer M/S. Holy Remedies Pvt.Ltd Corporate Ward-2(3) C/O. R.T.Vijayaraghavan, 64, Block B-9 Madely 2Nd Street Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai-17. Pan:Aacch 2157G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Chandrababu, Addl CITFor Respondent: 27.01.2021

Section 143(3)

Your appellant submits that the authorities below had not considered properly the facts relating to the case of your appellant and the evidentiary value of the documents produced at the time of personal hearing. 2 3. Your appellant ought to have considered the submissions of the appellant both

DCIT - CC - 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3967/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahendra B Mittal Income Tax, A-403, Meghdoot Apartment Central Circle 8 (1) Raheja Township, Malad(E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aebpm1654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)

Mahendra B Mittal 9.7 The Appellant had vehemently contended that the seized paper is in the nature of a dumb document, which have no evidentiary value and the same cannot be taken as sole basis for the determination of undisclosed income of the appellant. Reliance has been placed

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2105/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

statement of Mr. Jindal, which according to them is the incriminating material discovered during the search action. This statement certainly has the evidentiary value and relevance as contemplated under the explanation to section 132(4) of the Act. However, this statement cannot, on a standalone basis, without reference