← 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

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 62/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 61/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 60/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 59/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 58/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 57/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 56/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 55/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty

Shri Sayyed Hamid Ali, Ujjain vs. The ACIT Circle 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

short disclosure shown while filing the return of income during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. As regards to the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement. Section 17 to 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deal with admission. As defined in section ... basis of the statement recorded during the course of survey. Now whether the statement recorded during the course of survey has an evidentiary value in itself needs to be examined in the light of judicial pronouncements:- Sayyed Hamid Ali ITANo.38/Ind/2017 17. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case