← 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

Bmc Electroplast Private Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1871/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bmc Electroplast Pvt. Ltd…..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 130/22, Bakrahat Road, B S Industrial Estate, Hanspukur, South 24 Parganas, Kol – 700104. [Pan: Aabcb0407E] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Rip Das, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Of The Cit(Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A), Agra (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This Case, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2017-18 On 04/11/2017 Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs. 1,60,82,362/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (Cass). The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Determining The Total Loss At Rs. 65,20,241/- After Making Certain Disallowances As Follows: Bmc Electroplast Pvt. Ltd A) Disallowance Of Excess Claim Of Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Amounting To Rs. 56,73,734/-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

dismissed by observing as under: “4.2.2 Arguments against the appellant's contention: a) The tax audit report is a statutory document and carries significant evidentiary value. Any error in the report should have been rectified before filing of return or at least during the assessment proceedings. b) Mere submission