← 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

Mukesh B. Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6249/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Mukesh B Sharma Income Tax Officer-11(3)(2) Room No. 428, 4Th Floor Bldg. No. F, C202, Akshay Mittal Indl. Estate, 1St Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Pan – Aahps1995D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Respondent By: Shri D.G. Pansari Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30-07- 2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-36, Mumbai & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Though The Assessee Had Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal, We Find That The Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld Cita Was Justified In Upholding The Action Of The Ld Ao In Treating The Sale Consideration Of Shares Of Rs 7,88,77,854/- As Bogus & Consequentially Denying The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee U/S 10(38) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Interconnected Issue Involved Therein Is As To Whether The Ld Cita Was Justified In Confirming The Addition Made U/S 69C Of The Act In The Sum Of Rs.39,43,893/- Towards Commission On Sale Proceeds Of Shares In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

alleged the share sale transactions made in the open market as bogus based on the statements recorded during survey, which does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Khader Khan

Smt.Geeta Khare, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 4267/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 Pan – Ahopk7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Huf) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden Chs Ashar It Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, Midc Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 Pan – Aauhs1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent By: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am These Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Cit(A)-3, Nashik Dated 02.04.2018 & Cit(A)-3, Thane Dated 01.11.2017 Respectively & They Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. As Identical Issues Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre Are Involved In Both The Appeals, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68

concluded that these statements were taken behind the back of the assessee and were never put to the assessee for his rebuttal. Hence no evidentiary value could Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre be attached to those statements. We find that the statement was recorded on oath