← 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

M/S. Shree Sagar Industries, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Himatnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1256/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1256/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S.Shree Sagar Industries The Ito C/O. Patel Rajubhai M Ward-3, Vs. A-45, Shakuntala Society Himanatnagar Vijapur,Dist.Mehsana 384002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abmfs1529F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagapal, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 09/07/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-7/446/14-15 Dated 20/02/2017 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 13/01/2015 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagapal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

been able to satisfactorily explain the sundry creditors and merely producing copies of ledger accounts, that too unsigned accounts, does not have any evidentiary value. Further, the claim of the appellant that the addition was made u/s.41(1) of the Act is misplaced since the addition was not made

Raina Engineers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Panvel Cir, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2011-12 are allowed and appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3640/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/S Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aabfr6379J Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/S Raina Engineers, The Asst. Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Panvel Circle, Wadala (West), Vs. Panvel Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aabfr6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Raina Engineers, Tax, Panvel Circle, 604, Sunder Tower, Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Off. T.J. Road, Trifed Tower, Sector- 17, Vs. Opp. Swan Mills, Sewari, Opp: Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai Dist: Raigad. Pan: Aabfr6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aabfr6379J Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Raina Engineers, Tax, Panvel Circle, A-8, C-6, Sriram Industrial Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Estate, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Trifed Tower, Sector- 17, Vs. Wadala (W), Opp: Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Dist: Raigad Pan: Aabfr6379J

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchases before the AO and before CIT (A). (ii) The affidavits filed by the entry providers before Sales Tax Authorities cannot be ignored having evidentiary value. (iii) Where the other purchases are made directly by the assesse, the fact that only these purchases were made through brokers clearly shows ... purchases before the AO and before CIT (A). (ii) The affidavits filed by the entry providers before Sales Tax Authorities cannot be ignored having evidentiary value.” 4. In the present case also, the assessee has raised the additional ground vide which the assessee has challenged the reopening of the assessment

Mavji Dhanji Jadva, Bhuj-Kutch vs. Income Tax Officer, Inter.Taxa., Gandhidham

In the result, both the appeals of the appellants are allowed partly

ITA 53/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Smt.Amarbhai Dhanji Jadav Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Mavji Dhanji Jadva Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessees Are In Appeals Before The Tribunal Against Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 30.1.2017 Passed On The Respective Appeals Of The Assessees For Assessment Years 2012-13. 2. Assessees Are Mother & Son & Issue Involved In Both Appeals Relates To Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Required To Be Determined In The

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

must have been started after obtaining this estimate. If this certificate vis-à-vis certificate issued by the municipal authorities is compared for their evidentiary value, then no doubt scale would tilt in favour of the certificate issued by the authorities who are meant for such activity. The second evidence

Smt.Amarbai Dhanji Jadava, Bhuj-Kutch vs. Income Tax Officer(Inter.Taxa.), Gandhidham

In the result, both the appeals of the appellants are allowed partly

ITA 52/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Smt.Amarbhai Dhanji Jadav Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Mavji Dhanji Jadva Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessees Are In Appeals Before The Tribunal Against Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 30.1.2017 Passed On The Respective Appeals Of The Assessees For Assessment Years 2012-13. 2. Assessees Are Mother & Son & Issue Involved In Both Appeals Relates To Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Required To Be Determined In The

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

must have been started after obtaining this estimate. If this certificate vis-à-vis certificate issued by the municipal authorities is compared for their evidentiary value, then no doubt scale would tilt in favour of the certificate issued by the authorities who are meant for such activity. The second evidence

M/S. Baldiwala Brothers, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-5, Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2177/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Baladiwala Brothers Acit, बनाम/ 1, Baldiwala House, Circle-5, Kahar Mohalla Baroda Vs. Outside Panigate Baroda-390017 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aacfb4764C Appellant By S/Shri M.K. Patel & Shri Anil R. Sheikh, A.Rs Respondent By Shri N.K. Goel, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2019 Date Of 17.09.2019 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-V, Baroda Dated 7.5.2014 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. Baladiwala Brothers, Baroda 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact In Upholding Addition Of Rs.16,80,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Alleged As Excess Stock Found During The Course Of Survey Which Is Erroneous Both On Point Of Law & On Point Of Fact. 2. Your Appellant Fur4Ther Submits That He Has Been Maintaining Regular & Proper Books Of Accounts Which Are Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act & That Provisions Of Sales Tax/Vat Tax Applies & That Those Authorities Have Not Made By Adverse Remark To The Books Of Accounts, Stock Maintained Etc. & The Assessing Officer Have Not Rejected Books U/S 145 Of The Act Therefore The Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Addition.

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 44A

course of survey. He contended that the law is well settled that the statement recorded during the course of survey would have no evidentiary value and as such, such statement should not only be the basis for addition. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the A.O. has not brought on record