← 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

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

examination of Directors pertains to a procedural matter, which does not effect the validity of the statements recorded or their admissibility regarding the evidentiary value of the averments made by the deponent under the CPC/Income- Tax Act. In support of his contentions, the A/R relied upon the decisions

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

examination of Directors pertains to a procedural matter, which does not effect the validity of the statements recorded or their admissibility regarding the evidentiary value of the averments made by the deponent under the CPC/Income- Tax Act. In support of his contentions, the A/R relied upon the decisions

M/S Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 690/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)
Section 143(3)

argued by the ld AR that under the provisions of section 133A statements cannot be recorded on oath: -There is no evidentiary value of the statements recorded during survey proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT 10 ITA 690/JP/2018_ ... Income Tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the Income Tax Act 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

Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Burhanpur vs. ACIT, Khandwa

In the result appeal the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Asstt. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Gayatri Vs. Income Tax, Enterprises, Udyog Nagar, Khandwa Burhanpur (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Abxpt0602K Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Maneesh Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Cas Date Of Hearing 18.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2019 O R D E R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14A

amount offered in the return of income filed; (ii) based solely on the statement of the assessee made uls 133A proceedings having no evidentiary value which is bad in law, unjustified and uncalled for and it is prayed that the said addition may very kindly be deleted. 4. That ... Income Tax Act 1961 what remains is a statement recorded u/s 133A during the course of survey proceedings which has no evidentiary value as has been decided by various appellate authorities. Sole reliance has been placed by the revenue while upholding the addition of Rs. 2.09 crores which has been

The ITO, Ward-5, Mundra (Kutch) vs. Shri Kotak Mayur Arvindbhai, Mundra (Kutch)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/RJT/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul J. Ranpura
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 wherein it is held that loose paper without any supporting evidence does not have any evidentiary value and such paper would be merely presumption based on surmises. 14. Ld. A.R. also cited a judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case

Pratibha Pipes and Structurals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3874/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri. Ravish Sood ()

Section 143(3)Section 153D

affidavits filed by both officers. Therefore, the affidavits filed 19 Pratibha Pipes & Structurals Ltd by the officers cannot be ignored, as not having any evidentiary value. The contents of affidavits filed by the officers coupled with circumstantial evidences available in the assessment folders clearly establish the fact of obtaining necessary

Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1120/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Kota Vs.The DCIT, Kota recorded by the DDIT Kolkata are also not based on any documentary evidence so as to have an evidentiary value for sustaining the additions made by the AO. The entire report of the Investigation Wing is based on statements recorded during survey and search. Once

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

statements made by him-Despite several requests by the assessee, M was not made available for cross-examination- Though statement of M had evidentiary value, weight could not be given to it in proceedings against the assessee without testing it under cross- ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

statements made by him-Despite several requests by the assessee, M was not made available for cross-examination- Though statement of M had evidentiary value, weight could not be given to it in proceedings against the assessee without testing it under cross- ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

statements made by him-Despite several requests by the assessee, M was not made available for cross-examination- Though statement of M had evidentiary value, weight could not be given to it in proceedings against the assessee without testing it under cross- ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

statements made by him-Despite several requests by the assessee, M was not made available for cross-examination- Though statement of M had evidentiary value, weight could not be given to it in proceedings against the assessee without testing it under cross- ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Dr.Ranjan Pai, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 891/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Dr. Ranjan Pai, The Assistant Commissioner Block No. 1B, Jakkur Of Income Tax, Plantation Village, Vs. Central Circle – 2 (2), Yelahanka Main Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 064. Pan: Agbpp2795G Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 19/Bang/2019 (In Ita No. 891/Bang/2018) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 292C

first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second park speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be necessary for us to first ascertain whether the entries in the documents, with

Nand Bhagwandas Motwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Kalyan

ITA 5855/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5855/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase of Shop No.1 at Emerald. Therefore, this information along with statement recorded u/s.132(4), constituted a valid and tangible materials and has evidentiary value, which the assessing officer cannot ignore the content of the information. The information provided by 7 I.T.A. No. 5855/Mum/2017 Nand Bhagwandas Motwani, investigation wing ... assessee, therefore in these circumstances, the AO rightly concluded that this statement recorded u/s.132(4), constituted a valid and tangible materials and has evidentiary value. The information provided by investigation wing is received during the discharge 10 I.T.A. No. 5855/Mum/2017 Nand Bhagwandas Motwani, of official duties and is an integral

The ACIT, -2(1), Ujjain vs. M/S. Shriniwas Board and Paper Pvt. Ltd., Ujjain

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 151/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit 2(1), M/S Shriniwas Board & Ujjain Vs. Paper Pvt. Ltd, 68 Industrial Area, Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue) (Respondent ) Pan Aaccs7555D Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 80I

justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3378921/- made by the AD on account of inflated purchase even when no documentary evidence having independent evidentiary value was produced by the assessee.” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited ... justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3378921/- made by the AD on account of inflated purchase even when no documentary evidence having independent evidentiary value was produced by the assessee.” 9. From perusal of the above two grounds we observe that revenue has only challenged the deletion of addition

ITO 20(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Subhash Nadkarni, Mumbai

ITA 1959/MUM/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-20(3)(4) Shri Subhash S. Nadkarni Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Flat No. 248, Leela Baugh, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Telang Road, Matunga (Cr), Parel, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400019. Vs. Pan: Aadpn9763A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran With Shri Love Kumar (Dr) Respondent By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Airiju Jaikaran with Shri Love Kumar (DR)For Respondent: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

order of the ld CIT(A). The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that the statement of Kiran H Shah has no evidentiary value. The said Kiran H Shah was third party. His statement is unworthy of credit. During the assessment the assessing officer not gave the opportunity ... statement recorded by the investigation team during the search action was not corroborated by any documentary evidences. The ld. CIT (A) appreciated the evidentiary value of his statement and his cross examination and gave his findings. The assessee has brought the sufficient material before assessing officer as well

Daryodhan Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-3(2), Ludhiana

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2013-14 Daryodhan Singh Vs. The Ito V&Po: Sahnewal Khurd Ward 3(2) Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Y.K. Mittal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

assessee had brought on record the general and anonymous declaration of family settlement on a plain paper which could not be imparted any evidentiary value. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing in para 7 of the impugned order as under: Even

Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Jazzy B, Jalandhar vs. D.C.I.T, Central Circle - II, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 341/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153C

loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives, etc. have revealed that the transactions noted on documents were not genuine and have no evidentiary value and that details in these loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive, etc. do not comply with the requirement of the Indian ... show and substantiate the nature and source of receipts as well as the nature and reason of payments and have failed to prove evidentiary value of loose papers and electronic documents within the legal parameters. The Commission has also observed that the Department has not been able to make

Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Jazzy B, Jalandhar vs. D.C.I.T, Central Circle - II, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 340/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153C

loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives, etc. have revealed that the transactions noted on documents were not genuine and have no evidentiary value and that details in these loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive, etc. do not comply with the requirement of the Indian ... show and substantiate the nature and source of receipts as well as the nature and reason of payments and have failed to prove evidentiary value of loose papers and electronic documents within the legal parameters. The Commission has also observed that the Department has not been able to make

Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Jazzy B, Jalandhar vs. D.C.I.T, Central Circle - II, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 339/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153C

loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives, etc. have revealed that the transactions noted on documents were not genuine and have no evidentiary value and that details in these loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive, etc. do not comply with the requirement of the Indian ... show and substantiate the nature and source of receipts as well as the nature and reason of payments and have failed to prove evidentiary value of loose papers and electronic documents within the legal parameters. The Commission has also observed that the Department has not been able to make

Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Jazzy B, Jalandhar vs. D.C.I.T, Central Circle - II, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 338/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153C

loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives, etc. have revealed that the transactions noted on documents were not genuine and have no evidentiary value and that details in these loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive, etc. do not comply with the requirement of the Indian ... show and substantiate the nature and source of receipts as well as the nature and reason of payments and have failed to prove evidentiary value of loose papers and electronic documents within the legal parameters. The Commission has also observed that the Department has not been able to make