← 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. Computer Force, Daman vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3140/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3140/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Computer Force, V. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 376/2(14) Zari Causeway Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Road, Opp. Grounds Of Appeal State Co-Op, Bank Kachigam, Daman - 396 193. [Pan: Aacfc 6893 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 19.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 10.10.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06 Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs.9,16,971/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Income Tax Act,1961 (In Shot Of The Act)By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vapi Circle –Vapi (The Ao).

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

point , section 133A does not empower the AO to examine any person on oath hence, statement recorded during survey under section 133A has no evidentiary value in the light of decision of Hon`ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Sons ... observing that the assessee could not establish the expenditure incurred for renovation. Merely relying on statement, which according to the assessee has no evidentiary value is not suffice. The real facts involved cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the CIT (A) has confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Being, aggrieved the assessee

Mrs. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 708/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 51Section 68

erred in law as well as facts in believing the application made by the assessee before Settlement Commission as having more evidentiary value than mere statements recorded u/s 132(4) or section 131 of the IT Act, 1961 for sustaining the addition of Rs.5 lacs. 3.2 The issue raised ... duly verified and signed by the appellant on 21-12-2016. Sums and substance of these observations is that such application has far more evidentiary value than mere statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. Further facts contained in settlement application can always be used in view of section