← 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

ACIT, CC, Agra vs. M/S. United Farm Product Private Limited, Agra

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 69C

related to the Assessment year under consideration, appellant company or are not related to the Assessment year under consideration, 5 hence are of no evidentiary value, and cannot be said to be evidence in the eyes of law. In the said loose paper, it is not mentioned ... paper are not tallying with the loan disbursements and the appellants contention that it is rough working I jottings for estimate purpose, having no evidentiary value, since they are not corroborated with the facts and figures, it seems to be a genuine concern and once the figures on the loose

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1145/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 153ASection 69

related findings. 4. The CIT (Appeals) 18, Chennai failed to appreciate that the loose sheets relied upon by the lower authorities had no evidentiary value there by vitiating the incorrect assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act and the consequential search assessment order passed under Section 153A

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1144/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 153ASection 69

related findings. 4. The CIT (Appeals) 18, Chennai failed to appreciate that the loose sheets relied upon by the lower authorities had no evidentiary value there by vitiating the incorrect assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act and the consequential search assessment order passed under Section 153A

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 153ASection 69

related findings. 4. The CIT (Appeals) 18, Chennai failed to appreciate that the loose sheets relied upon by the lower authorities had no evidentiary value there by vitiating the incorrect assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act and the consequential search assessment order passed under Section 153A