← 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

ITO 28(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Neha S Saney, Navi Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7349/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1710/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Neha S.Saney Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 A-1102, Plot No.5 बनाम/ Sai Pride, Vashi Railway Station Complex Palm Beach Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Vs. Sector 18, Sanpada Mumbai – 400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapt-8150-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7349/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 28(2)(3) Neha S.Saney 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 A-1102, Plot No.5 बनाम/ Vashi Railway Station Complex Sai Pride, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Palm Beach Road Vs. Sector 18, Sanpada Mumbai – 400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapt-8150-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ritika Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

detailed investigation regarding the purchase of the shop and therefore the action u/s 263 was not valid. The assessee further contended that no evidentiary value could be attached to loose sheets found from the possession of third party. However, Ld. CIT opined that the information from investigation Neha S.Saney Assessment

Neha S. Saney, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1710/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1710/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Neha S.Saney Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 A-1102, Plot No.5 बनाम/ Sai Pride, Vashi Railway Station Complex Palm Beach Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Vs. Sector 18, Sanpada Mumbai – 400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapt-8150-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7349/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 28(2)(3) Neha S.Saney 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 A-1102, Plot No.5 बनाम/ Vashi Railway Station Complex Sai Pride, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Palm Beach Road Vs. Sector 18, Sanpada Mumbai – 400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapt-8150-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ritika Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

detailed investigation regarding the purchase of the shop and therefore the action u/s 263 was not valid. The assessee further contended that no evidentiary value could be attached to loose sheets found from the possession of third party. However, Ld. CIT opined that the information from investigation Neha S.Saney Assessment