← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S. Ace Infracity Developers Pvrivate Ltd, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4104/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2022-23] Dcit Vs M/S. Ace Infracity Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Plot No. Ib, Gautam Budh A.R.T.O Complex, Nagar-201301 Sector-33, Noida-201301. Pan-Aakca8693E Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69A

other director of the appellant company. It is a well-settled principle of law that a statement unsupported by corroborative documentary evidence lacks evidentiary value. In the present case, the AO has made the addition solely based on the statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar without producing any documentary evidence ... incriminating material etc., found from premises of assessee during course of search, statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) would not have any evidentiary value. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Tiruchirappalli reported at [2016] 74 taxmann

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Manoj Kumar Bansal, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1041/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Manoj Kumar Bansal, 401 Income Tax Room No. New Delhi House, 27 Barakhamba 261-A 2Nd Floor F-2 Ara Road Delhi 110001 Centre, New Delhi- 110055 Pan No.Aahpb3143F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Shri Ram Yadav was not a director of M/s White Collar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and therefore his statement in our opinion, has no evidentiary value. The list of the companies named by Shri Ram Yadav, which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer nowhere shows that

Sonu Goma Bhangale, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2350/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kawadia (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade,<br>Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

invoking section 68.* *The appellant has claimed substantial agricultural income of Rs. 65 lakhs (net) from cultivation of banana and cotton. However, the evidentiary value of the materials produced is highly questionable:* - *The receipts furnished are handwritten slips without date, PAN, address, or signature of purchasers. Several entries are overwritten

Shri Krishan Sharma, Faridabad vs. Ward 2(3) Faridabad, Faridabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4315/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Khitesh Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

demonstrated any credible flow of funds from his father to himself. Mere oral assertions, unaccompanied by documentary proof, do not hold any evidentiary value. Moreover, given the substantial amount involved, it would be expected that if the money was indeed transferred by the appellant's father, a formal gift deed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Ace Mega Structure Private Limited, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4115/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

other director of the appellant company. It is a well-settled principle of law that a statement unsupported by corroborative documentary evidence lacks evidentiary value. In the present case, the AO has made the addition solely based on the statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar without producing any documentary evidence ... incriminating material etc., found from premises of assessee during course of search, statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) would not have any evidentiary value. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Tiruchirappalli reported at [2016] 74 taxmann

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Bright Buildtech Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4106/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2021-22] Dcit Vs M/S. Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle -1, D-35, Anand Vihar & Vihar, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, Anand Vihar, S.O-East Delhi, Noida-201301. Delhi-110092 Pan-Aaccb7981J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

other director of the appellant company. It is a well-settled principle of law that a statement unsupported by corroborative documentary evidence lacks evidentiary value. In the present case, the AO has made the addition solely based on the statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar without producing any documentary evidence ... incriminating material etc., found from premises of assessee during course of search, statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) would not have any evidentiary value. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Tiruchirappalli reported at [2016] 74 taxmann

Ace Mega Structures Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4067/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

other director of the appellant company. It is a well-settled principle of law that a statement unsupported by corroborative documentary evidence lacks evidentiary value. In the present case, the AO has made the addition solely based on the statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar without producing any documentary evidence ... incriminating material etc., found from premises of assessee during course of search, statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) would not have any evidentiary value. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Tiruchirappalli reported at [2016] 74 taxmann

V S A Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 906/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Narasimha Rao and Sri R. Madhava Reddy, even though the statements on oath recorded during the course of survey do not have any evidentiary value. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the additions made by the A.O. towards subcontract expenses submitted that, the assessee has executed various

V S A Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 905/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Narasimha Rao and Sri R. Madhava Reddy, even though the statements on oath recorded during the course of survey do not have any evidentiary value. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the additions made by the A.O. towards subcontract expenses submitted that, the assessee has executed various

V S A Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 904/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Narasimha Rao and Sri R. Madhava Reddy, even though the statements on oath recorded during the course of survey do not have any evidentiary value. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the additions made by the A.O. towards subcontract expenses submitted that, the assessee has executed various

V S A Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 903/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Narasimha Rao and Sri R. Madhava Reddy, even though the statements on oath recorded during the course of survey do not have any evidentiary value. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the additions made by the A.O. towards subcontract expenses submitted that, the assessee has executed various

V S A Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 902/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Narasimha Rao and Sri R. Madhava Reddy, even though the statements on oath recorded during the course of survey do not have any evidentiary value. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the additions made by the A.O. towards subcontract expenses submitted that, the assessee has executed various

Vishwas Shashikant Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1399/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

which a categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which a categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which has strong evidentiary value. has strong evidentiary value. It is submitted that the assessment framed under Section It is submitted that the assessment framed under Section It is submitted

Gautam Ashok Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1398/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

which a categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which a categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which has strong evidentiary value. has strong evidentiary value. It is submitted that the assessment framed under Section It is submitted that the assessment framed under Section It is submitted

Gaurav Abhay Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1397/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

which a categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which a categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which has strong evidentiary value. has strong evidentiary value. It is submitted that the assessment framed under Section It is submitted that the assessment framed under Section It is submitted

Vikram Sajanlal Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1391/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 153A

that a bald retraction after\nsearch, without credible supporting evidence, cannot override\na categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which\nhas strong evidentiary value.\nIt is submitted that the assessment framed under Section\n153A of the Income-tax Act is valid and legal. Section 153A\nempowers the Assessing

Tanu Gautam Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai.

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

ITA 1345/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 153A

that a bald retraction after\nsearch, without credible supporting evidence, cannot override\na categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which\nhas strong evidentiary value.\n\nIt is submitted that the assessment framed under Section\n153A of the Income-tax Act is valid and legal. Section 153A\nempowers

Sidharth Abhay Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai.

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

ITA 1344/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 153A

that a bald retraction after\nsearch, without credible supporting evidence, cannot override\na categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which\nhas strong evidentiary value.\nIt is submitted that the assessment framed under Section\n153A of the Income-tax Act is valid and legal. Section 153A\nempowers the Assessing

Ashish Shashikant Choksi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1341/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

which a categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which a categorical statement made under oath u/s 132(4), which has strong evidentiary value. has strong evidentiary value. It is submitted that the assessment framed under Section It is submitted that the assessment framed under Section It is submitted

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Star Landcraft Private Limited, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4117/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

basis for making the addition. ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others Moreover, the statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar, as relied upon by the Ld. AO, has no evidentiary value since he merely stated that the advances against sales or own money against sales was received and the same was used for granting loans ... other director of the appellant company. It is a well- settled principle of law that a statement unsupported by corroborative documentary evidence lacks evidentiary value. In the present case, the AO has made the addition solely based on the statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar without producing any documentary evidence