← 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

Hastimal U. Sonigara, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 78/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Hastimal U. Sonigara, Ito-15(1)(2), Prop. Of M/S. H.Umedmal, Mumbai. 89/91, Ground Floor, Dhanji Vs. Street, Mandavi, Mumbai-400003. Pan:Aaeps7391C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rakesh K. Parekh, Ito-15(1)(2), Prop. Of M/S. L.Yogeshwar & Co., Mumbai. 89/91, Ground Floor, Dhanji Vs. Street, Mandavi, Mumbai-400003. Pan:Aacpp8435E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Lalit Hastimal Jain, Ito-15(1)(2), Prop. Of M/S. Sanjay Enterprises, Mumbai. 89/91, Ground Floor, Dhanji Vs. Street, Mandavi, Mumbai-400003. Pan:Aabpj4218L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

89/M/2014- Shri Hastimal U. Sonigara & Ors. basis of statement recorded during the survey proceedings. The statement recorded during the survey has no evidentiary value and no additions can be made on the basis of such statement recoded during the survey. For the additions on disallowances of expenses it was argued ... Court in case of CIT vs. S. Khadar Khan (2012) 25 taxman.com/352 ITR 480 held that statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value and the admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of admission. Thus, considering the factual and legal position discussed above, we hold

Smt Krishna Saha, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 52(2), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2469/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2007-08 Smt. Krishna Saha, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 18/3, Lotus Park, Ward-52(2), 2, Kolkata-700 047 Gariahat Road, (S), [Pan No.Aklps 7653 L] Kolkata-68 अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" की ओर से/By Assessee Shri Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25-01-2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini:- The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata, In Appeal No. 230/Cit(A)- Xxxxiii/Ito Ward 52(2), Kol/09-10, Dated 25.07.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Vide His Order Dated 18.09.2009. 2.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.For That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Appellate Authority Failed & Neglected To Appreciate The Facts & Merit Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.28,28,423/- As Unexplained Stock & Also An Amount Of Rs.53,167/- As Observed In The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Authority.

Section 133ASection 143(3)

Krishna Saha Vs. ITO Wd,52(2), Kol. Page 8 not mandate that any statement recorded under section 133A would have evidentiary value. For a statement to have evidentiary value, the survey officer should have been authorised to administer, oath and to record sworn statement. This would also be apparent ... Krishna Saha Vs. ITO Wd,52(2), Kol. Page 10 evidence. The statement on oath u/s. 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value and any addition made based on such statement is not sustainable. 9.3.We note that the statements and admissions made during the survey is extremely piece

DCIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada vs. Sri Bhavansi Yella Rao, Piduguralla

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 351/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Officer to establish that, as has been rightly concluded by the Tribunal on this issue. Moreover, photocopy of the unsigned agreement has got no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer has done a guess work while coming to the conclusion that the price of the property is more than mentioned

Bhavanasi Yella Rao vs. The ACIT, Vijayawada

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 268/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Officer to establish that, as has been rightly concluded by the Tribunal on this issue. Moreover, photocopy of the unsigned agreement has got no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer has done a guess work while coming to the conclusion that the price of the property is more than mentioned

Bhavanasi Yella Rao vs. The ACIT, Vijayawada

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 267/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Officer to establish that, as has been rightly concluded by the Tribunal on this issue. Moreover, photocopy of the unsigned agreement has got no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer has done a guess work while coming to the conclusion that the price of the property is more than mentioned

Bhavanasi Yella Rao vs. The ACIT, Vijayawada

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 266/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Officer to establish that, as has been rightly concluded by the Tribunal on this issue. Moreover, photocopy of the unsigned agreement has got no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer has done a guess work while coming to the conclusion that the price of the property is more than mentioned

Bhavanasi Yella Rao vs. The ACIT, Vijayawada

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 265/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Officer to establish that, as has been rightly concluded by the Tribunal on this issue. Moreover, photocopy of the unsigned agreement has got no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer has done a guess work while coming to the conclusion that the price of the property is more than mentioned