← 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

A.W.Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

sundry creditors. However, we restore this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to examine whether there is any other evidentiary value establishing genuineness or credit worthiness of ITA Nos.1985 to 1988/Bang/2017 Page 9 of 9 the transaction and to come to the conclusion whether sundry creditors

A W Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1986/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

sundry creditors. However, we restore this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to examine whether there is any other evidentiary value establishing genuineness or credit worthiness of ITA Nos.1985 to 1988/Bang/2017 Page 9 of 9 the transaction and to come to the conclusion whether sundry creditors

A.W.Industries Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1985/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.N.Bhat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

sundry creditors. However, we restore this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to examine whether there is any other evidentiary value establishing genuineness or credit worthiness of ITA Nos.1985 to 1988/Bang/2017 Page 9 of 9 the transaction and to come to the conclusion whether sundry creditors

Sri Gautam Kumar Pincha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 34(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha................................……………………………………………Appellant Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, 19, Synagogue Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Akgpp 6211 L] I.T.O. Ward 34(4) Kolkata,...................……………………………………………............Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mandal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 11, 2018

Section 148

transfer of money, and remain mere documents without the corresponding documents relating to transfer of goods. In my considered view of the matter, the evidentiary value of payments by bank therefore is enormously diminished for the case at hand. 5 I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Gautam Kumar

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 832/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153C

155/156) A.S.Sivan Pillai vs CIT - 34 ITR 328 - Madras HC(CLPB page 162/163) On the issue that admission is not conclusive and has no evidentiary value: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr - 91 ITR 18 - Supreme Court (CLPB page 189/190) CIT vs. S.Khader Khan

Nirmala Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 996/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

statements recorded in the case of third party which stood retracted by the person who made those statements thus the same has no evidentiary value, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated u/s 148 deserves to be hold bad in law. It is further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings

Nirmala Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 995/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

statements recorded in the case of third party which stood retracted by the person who made those statements thus the same has no evidentiary value, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated u/s 148 deserves to be hold bad in law. It is further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings

Priyanka Tikmani, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-33(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2837/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06 Priyanka Tikmani V/S. Income Tax Officer, 2Nd Floor, 10, Lord Ward-33(1),10B, Sinha Road, Kolkat-71 Middleton Row, Kolkata [Pan No.Acxpj 1732B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri D.P. Baid, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Kolkata Dated 05.01.2013. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-33(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.08.2007 For Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Assessing Officer Erred In Law As Well S On Fact & Was Not Justified In Adding The Entire Gifts Of Rs.20,00,000/- As Cash Credit U/S. 69 Of The It Act On The Alleged Ground As Your Appellant Had Produced All Documentary Evidences As To The Genuineness, Creditworthiness & Proper Identity Of Each Of The Various Donors Before The Ld. Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding. Similarly The Ld. Cit(A)-Xix, Kol Also Was Not Justified To Uphold/Sustain The Said Arbitrary Illogical & Or Unjustified Addition Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. That The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A)-Xix, Kol Were Not Justified In Not Giving Due Cognizance To The Fact Of The Case As Well As The Evidences Produced Before Them. The Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, Kol Was Also Not

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69

explanation. For augmenting her arguments about the bitterness that had crept in between the family relations, she could not furnish any documents having some evidentiary value for proving such bitterness in the form of legal dispute papers, arbitration document, family settlement etc. to substantiate her claim in this regard. Therefore

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

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. If the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal, we find

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Anil Shantilal Gandhi, Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. He pointed that some scribbling were made from time to time. But the notings were only rough notings and had no evidentiary value. The assessee pleaded these were dumb documents. The Assessing Officer vide Para 6.3 held that the submissions made by assessee were not acceptable

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Anil Shantilal Gandhi, Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 943/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. He pointed that some scribbling were made from time to time. But the notings were only rough notings and had no evidentiary value. The assessee pleaded these were dumb documents. The Assessing Officer vide Para 6.3 held that the submissions made by assessee were not acceptable

Mathura Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7096/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra,D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 68

certify the appellant or any authorised person, they are in the nature of dumb 7 ITA Nos.7096/M/2017 & Ors. M/s. Mathura Enterprises documents having no evidentiary value and cannot by taken as a sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the appellant. When dumb documents like the present loose sheets ... also stated that the additions were made on the statement given by Mr. Ketan A. Shah which have no evidentiary value as there was no corroboration by the AO either with reference to the books of accounts or other evidences gathered either during survey or during the assessment proceedings

M/S Bassi Steels Ltd., Mohali vs. DCIT, Mohali

ITA 96/CHANDI/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok GoelFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta
Section 148Section 68

favour, could not present themselves before the Assessing Officer for being examined on the affidavits. In the light of the facts, the evidentiary value of the affidavits was open to serious doubt. The affidavits retracting their earlier statements, filed by M and R were filed more than three years after

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.95/PUN/2016. The Assessing Officer in such circumstances, where as against search on 20.01.2011, declaration was made on 11.03.2011 held that such statement had great evidentiary value especially where the assessee had ample time and expert advice of his consultant in the intervening period. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer held

Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.95/PUN/2016. The Assessing Officer in such circumstances, where as against search on 20.01.2011, declaration was made on 11.03.2011 held that such statement had great evidentiary value especially where the assessee had ample time and expert advice of his consultant in the intervening period. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer held

Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.95/PUN/2016. The Assessing Officer in such circumstances, where as against search on 20.01.2011, declaration was made on 11.03.2011 held that such statement had great evidentiary value especially where the assessee had ample time and expert advice of his consultant in the intervening period. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer held

Joshi Wadewale Hadapsar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.95/PUN/2016. The Assessing Officer in such circumstances, where as against search on 20.01.2011, declaration was made on 11.03.2011 held that such statement had great evidentiary value especially where the assessee had ample time and expert advice of his consultant in the intervening period. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer held

Joshi Wadewale Prabhat Cinema, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.95/PUN/2016. The Assessing Officer in such circumstances, where as against search on 20.01.2011, declaration was made on 11.03.2011 held that such statement had great evidentiary value especially where the assessee had ample time and expert advice of his consultant in the intervening period. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer held

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.95/PUN/2016. The Assessing Officer in such circumstances, where as against search on 20.01.2011, declaration was made on 11.03.2011 held that such statement had great evidentiary value especially where the assessee had ample time and expert advice of his consultant in the intervening period. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer held

ACIT, Cir-2, Burdwan vs. M/S Ram Chandra Das & Son Jwellers Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 446/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.446/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Circle-2, Burdwan Vs. M/S Ram Chandra Das & Son Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Court Bara Bazar, Bc Road, Burdwan, Compound, Burdwan – 713101. Dist-Burdwan – 713104. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr 6669 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri Saikat Maulik सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Saikat Maulik
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

books of account u/s 145 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the statement was recorded on oath which does not have any evidentiary value because the said statement has not been corroborated by any tangible evidence. The ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that there is no requirement ... Chandra Das & Son Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2011-12 evidence. Therefore, the statement taken during survey does not have any evidentiary value. 6.We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that assessee has explained the difference in stock