“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

Mr. Braham Arenja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed while Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 2578/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Before Shri G.D. Agrawal & Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice Before Shri G.D. Agrawal & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Smt. Beena Pillai Member Smt. Beena Pillai Smt. Beena Pillai , Judicial Member

Section 132

amount expended for making the investment which has not been recorded in his books of accounts, based on an excel spreadsheet which has no evidentiary value. b) The consequent addition of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- made by the assessing officer and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) being illegal, erroneous

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Anuradha Dutt Munjal, New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6321/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

order of the Tribunal are as under: “11. In the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the evidentiary value of the statement recorded during the course of search. The relevant portion is paragraph 19, 20 & 24, which are reproduced below for ready reference ... Income-tax Act, however, in our opinion, the above observation of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable while considering the evidentiary value of the statement while making the assessment u/s 153A.” 2.4 Thus, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Usha Bhatt, New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6320/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Brahm Dutt, New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6318/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

M/S Magic Auto (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3102/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153C

BAHIs are incorrect as it did not belongs to the assessee. Statement of Mahesh Mehta is not an admissible in evidence and has no evidentiary value. Mr. Sushil Sharma, employee of Mahesh Mehta group of companies who has authored BAHIs was never produced before assessee for cross-examination on behalf

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

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-examination – Therefore, in the absence of M being ... Smita P. Patil Vs. ACIT, (2014) 159 TTJ 182 (pages 316-336 of PB-5), the Hon‘ble ITAT, Pune Bench w.r.t evidentiary value of witness indulging in double speaking and taking vacillating stands referring to the order of Hon‘ble Mumbai ITAT in Jafferali K Rattonsey Vs. DCIT Mumbai

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

M/S. Mangat Rice & General Mills, Shahkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Nakodar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the terms aforesaid

ITA 474/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.474/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mangat Rice & General Vs. Ito, Nakodar. Mills, Shahkot. Pan: Aabfm 5282B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Gaurav Dhall, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 23.05.2017, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08 Vide Order Dated 14.12.2009. 2. The Principal Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Maintainability In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of An Addition For Rs.4.39 Lacs Sustained By The First Appellate Authority. The Background Facts Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm In The Business Of Rice Milling, Filed Its’ Return Of Income For The Year On 18.03.2008 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. It’S Trade Debtors & Trade Creditors, Reflected At Rs.9.42 Lacs & Rs.32.18 Lacs Respectively As At The Year-End, I.E., 31.03.2007, Per Its Final Accounts, Were Sought To Be Verified By The 2 Mangat Rice & General Mills V. Ito Assessing Officer (Ao) By Calling Information There-From U/S.133(6) Of The Act. The Dispute Under Reference Pertains To Two Creditors, As Under: (A) Jai Ram Jagdish Chandra, Mehatpur (Jrjc) : Rs.6,03,837.83 (B) Sohan Singh Satpal, Mehatpur (Sss) : Rs.8,38,871.58

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Dhall, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Das, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 131oSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)

stated extent, as borne out by its’ audited accounts, would amount to naught in view of their stating on oath – which has evidentiary value, of having received their dues from the assessee over a period of time, which is in agreement with their books of account. The said statements have

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 5.26. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta

Section 147Section 151

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had failed to appreciate that the statement recorded in the course of survey has no evidentiary value and therefore, such statement so recorded could not be relied upon and in absence of any other tangible material to form an opinion that income ... Faridabad are already on the record and in the books of account of the assessee. The statement recorded during the survey has not evidentiary value without corroborating evidence. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. Commissioner of Income

M/S Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta

Section 147Section 151

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Prb Securities Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR

Section 143(3)

High Court in this case had held that the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act in survey proceeding has no evidentiary value. This judgment is a celebrated judgment and has been followed by all the courts of the company. v) In the said show cause notice you have

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. Sri Krishna Nagai Maligai (P) Ltd, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1901/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1901/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Sri Krishna Nagai Of Income Tax, Maligai (P) Ltd, Corporate Circle 2, 81, South Avani Moola St, Madurai. Madurai 625 001. [Pan Aamcs 0459A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 131Section 133Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took a view that statements recorded u/s.131 of the Act at the time of survey on 26.07.2011 had no evidentiary value by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Sons

Sri Ambsa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2744/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

learned AR of the assessee submitted that the statement of Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode recorded on 28.08.2014 in the course of survey, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for making an addition. In support of this proposition, the learned AR placed reliance on the decisions ... authorities below as mere afterthoughts and as being unreliable without controverting the declarations made therein. It is settled position that Affidavit filed have evidentiary value and the same cannot be ignored; as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh

Sri Ambasa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2743/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

Sri Ambasa R Hsbib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2742/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Asian Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1985/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132

held that any information gathered by the AO without confronting the same to the assessee did not have any evidentiary value and cannot be used for the purpose of assessment or other proceedings. We also note that the assessee’s plea to the AO to cross examine the so called

Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1666/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

that information received being internal departmental document, could not be shared. The assessee stressed that since the documents were not shared, they had no evidentiary value and further the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the evidences and witnesses, which was patent violation of natural justice