← 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

The Income Tax Officer, Katra vs. Smt. Madhu Gupta, Reasi (J & K)

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 643/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 643/Asr./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Madhu Gupta, Ward-2(5), L/H Of Late Shri. Subash Chander Katra Gupta (Deceased), Prop. M/S Neeraj Shawl Emporium & New Tridev Hotel, Shive Khori, Reasi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahjpg2341N Assessee By : Shri. P. N. Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Charan Dass, Dr Date Of Hearing :15.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Jammu Dated 23.06.2016. 2. The Sole Issue Involved Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.85,98,690/- On Account Of Undisclosed Income Surrendered During Survey.

For Appellant: Shri. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, DR
Section 133A

where it has been held that whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the Act, it is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under ... Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) held that the statement recorded during the course of survey has non- evidentiary value. 13. Further, we find that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is also supported by the opinion of the CBDT expressed vide F.No. 286/2/2003-IT