← 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

Shri Narendra Kumar Simhal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1 (2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Narendra Kumar Simhal (Huf) Ito-1(2) बनाम/ Prop:- M/S Alankar Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 30, Roshanpura, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aachn2629G Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Advs Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 27.03.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 25.02.2016 By Ito- 1(2), Bhopal.

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

Sons v. CIT [2003J 181 CTR (Ker.) 207 : [2003J 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) has held that the statement recorded under s. 133A has no evidentiary value. The same view has been reiterated recently by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan ... holding that s. 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath and hence such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made in such statement cannot, by itself, be made he basis for addition. It is pertinent to note that the SLP against

DCIT - CC - 4 (1), Cr- 4, Pr. CIT- (C)-2, Mumbai vs. Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5803/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5680/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5681/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 142, Garuda House, Upper Income Tax, Cc-4(1), 19 Th बनाम/ Govind Nagar Malad (East), Floor, Air India Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 097 Mumbai-400 021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecp6450A आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5803/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5802/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-4(1), 19 Th 142, Garuda House, Upper बनाम/ Floor, Air India Bldg., Govind Nagar Malad (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 097 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ms. Mitali Gopani, Ars प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Awungshi Gimson, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Harjeev Aggarwal (supra) and Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra). In the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the evidentiary value of the statement recorded during 16 | P a g e 5680 & 5681/Mum/18, 5802 & 5803/Mum/18 PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the course of search. The relevant ... 5681/Mum/18, 5802 & 5803/Mum/18 PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable while considering the evidentiary value of the statement while making the assessment u/s 153A." 7. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR relied on the assessment order and the order of CIT(A). He stated

DCIT - CC - 4 (1), Cr- 4, Pr. CIT- (C)-2, Mumbai vs. Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5802/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5680/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5681/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 142, Garuda House, Upper Income Tax, Cc-4(1), 19 Th बनाम/ Govind Nagar Malad (East), Floor, Air India Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 097 Mumbai-400 021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecp6450A आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5803/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5802/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-4(1), 19 Th 142, Garuda House, Upper बनाम/ Floor, Air India Bldg., Govind Nagar Malad (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 097 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ms. Mitali Gopani, Ars प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Awungshi Gimson, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Harjeev Aggarwal (supra) and Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra). In the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the evidentiary value of the statement recorded during 16 | P a g e 5680 & 5681/Mum/18, 5802 & 5803/Mum/18 PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the course of search. The relevant ... 5681/Mum/18, 5802 & 5803/Mum/18 PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable while considering the evidentiary value of the statement while making the assessment u/s 153A." 7. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR relied on the assessment order and the order of CIT(A). He stated

Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5681/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5680/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5681/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 142, Garuda House, Upper Income Tax, Cc-4(1), 19 Th बनाम/ Govind Nagar Malad (East), Floor, Air India Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 097 Mumbai-400 021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecp6450A आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5803/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5802/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-4(1), 19 Th 142, Garuda House, Upper बनाम/ Floor, Air India Bldg., Govind Nagar Malad (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 097 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ms. Mitali Gopani, Ars प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Awungshi Gimson, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Harjeev Aggarwal (supra) and Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra). In the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the evidentiary value of the statement recorded during 16 | P a g e 5680 & 5681/Mum/18, 5802 & 5803/Mum/18 PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the course of search. The relevant ... 5681/Mum/18, 5802 & 5803/Mum/18 PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable while considering the evidentiary value of the statement while making the assessment u/s 153A." 7. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR relied on the assessment order and the order of CIT(A). He stated

Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5680/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5680/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5681/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 142, Garuda House, Upper Income Tax, Cc-4(1), 19 Th बनाम/ Govind Nagar Malad (East), Floor, Air India Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 097 Mumbai-400 021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecp6450A आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5803/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5802/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-4(1), 19 Th 142, Garuda House, Upper बनाम/ Floor, Air India Bldg., Govind Nagar Malad (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 097 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ms. Mitali Gopani, Ars प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Awungshi Gimson, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Harjeev Aggarwal (supra) and Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra). In the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the evidentiary value of the statement recorded during 16 | P a g e 5680 & 5681/Mum/18, 5802 & 5803/Mum/18 PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the course of search. The relevant ... 5681/Mum/18, 5802 & 5803/Mum/18 PKSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable while considering the evidentiary value of the statement while making the assessment u/s 153A." 7. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR relied on the assessment order and the order of CIT(A). He stated

ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Balee Plastics P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeal of Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7524/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7524/Mum/2012 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Ward 5(1)(2), Peninsula Business Park Bhavan, M.K. Road, B Wing, 13 Floor, Senapati बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Vs. (West), Mumbai-400 013 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb5172D प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 16/Mum/2014 (Arising In Ita No. 7524/Mum/2012 For Ay 2009-10) Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Peninsula Business Park Ward 5(1)(2), B Wing, 13 Floor, Senapati Bhavan, M.K. Road, बनाम/ Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Vs. (West), Mumbai-400 013 (आपत्ति करनेवाला / Cross Objector) (प्रत्यर्थी/ मूल अपीलार्थी / Respondent/Orig. Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.11.19 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.7524/Mum/2012 & CO. No. 16/Mum/2014 person alleging contradictory facts should not be heard; such retracted statements have lost their evidentiary values. Mr. Jadavji L Shah alleged contradictory things and hence not to be heard. It is a trite law that a man shall not be permitted