← 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

Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2159/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, B-174, Ground Floor, Ward-61(5), Nirman Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110092. Pan: Aagpa1651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.P. Ganguli, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2018 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Doctor & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th March, 2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,77,510/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On The Ground That The Assessee Has Received Cash Payment Of Rs.2 Lakh During F.Y. 2008-09 Which Was Largely Unaccounted For As Per The Information Received From The Dcit, Circle 1, New Delhi. The Assessee, In Response To The Same, Submitted That The Original Return Filed On 20Th March, 2010 May Be Treated As Return Filed In Response To Notice U/S 148. On Being Asked By The Assessee To Issue The Reasons Recorded, The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Ganguli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr.DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148

133A of the IT Act. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the statement recorded during the course of survey does not have any evidentiary value unless it is backed up by corroborative evidences. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case ... decision has held that section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot by itself be made the basis for addition. He submitted that the SLP filed