← 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

DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Golden Wings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 5972/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5972/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. Cit, Cent. Cir.-13, M/S. Golden Wings Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 1103, 11Th Floor, Malkani Chambers, Old Cgo Annexe Bldg., Ground Floor, Nehru Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-410 099 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 7210 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6228/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Golden Wings Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Cent. Cir.-13, बनाम/ Room No. 1103, 11Th Floor, Malkani Chambers, Ground Floor, Nehru Road, Old Cgo Annexe Bldg., Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-410 099 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 7210 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : Revenue By : Shri T. A. Khan Assessee By : Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 28.07.2014 & Pertain To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G. JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan
Section 131Section 133ASection 37

from interest cost on lease rental payment to peel aviation. The Assessing Officer held that the statements recorded u/s. 131 of the Act is evidentiary value. That the assessee has retracted from his original position of where quotation from an estimated basis to one where billing done to Peel Aviation

M/S Budhiya Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-Xxx, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 269/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269 & 270/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2007-08 M/S Budhiya Marketing (P) Vs. A.C.I.T, Central Cir-Xxx, Ltd. Kolkata. 16B, Shakespeare Sarani, 2Ndfloor,Kolkata – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 3055 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Appellant By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shri Kalyan Nath, Acit& A. K. Tiwari, Cit, Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata In Appeal No. 475 &478/Cc- 3(2)/Cit(A)-21/14-15, Dated 19.01.2015, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2011. 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita N0.270/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, ACIT& A. K. Tiwari, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 68

director of the companies who contributed towards share capital and share premium of Assessee Company and hence his deposition can have no evidentiary value for making any addition in the hands of assessee company on account of introduction of share capital. The assessee relied upon various judicial decisions in support

M/S Budhiya Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-Xxx, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 270/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269 & 270/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2007-08 M/S Budhiya Marketing (P) Vs. A.C.I.T, Central Cir-Xxx, Ltd. Kolkata. 16B, Shakespeare Sarani, 2Ndfloor,Kolkata – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 3055 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Appellant By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shri Kalyan Nath, Acit& A. K. Tiwari, Cit, Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata In Appeal No. 475 &478/Cc- 3(2)/Cit(A)-21/14-15, Dated 19.01.2015, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2011. 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita N0.270/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, ACIT& A. K. Tiwari, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 68

director of the companies who contributed towards share capital and share premium of Assessee Company and hence his deposition can have no evidentiary value for making any addition in the hands of assessee company on account of introduction of share capital. The assessee relied upon various judicial decisions in support

DCIT Cen Cir 1(3), Mumbai vs. Studio Aesthetic Health & Hospitality P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are allowed and the cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2525 & 2526/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dy. Cit-Central Circle-1(3), Studio Aethetic Health & Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 No.1, Home Worth, 7Th Cross Road, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6615 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 2525 & 2526/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Studio Aethetic Health & Hospitality Dy. Cit-Central Circle-1(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building बनाम/ No.1, Home Worth, Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 7Th Cross Road, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6615 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman : Shri Naresh Kumar With Assessee By Shri Yogesh Joijode सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.09.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Emanating Out Of The Respective Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since The Issues Are Identical & The Appeals Were Heard Together, These Are Being Consolidated & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153D

statement of Smt. Madhu Chopra which is being relied upon by the Assessing Officer has been duly retracted. Hence, the same has no evidentiary value. Furthermore, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not based upon any cogent material

M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Murshidabad vs. ACIT, Cir- Murshidabad, Murshidabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1020/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co. Acit, Circle, बनाम / Pvt. Ltd., Vill. & P.O. Murshidabad, 39 R.N. V/S. Auragabad Dist. Tagore Road, P.O. Murshidabad, Berhampur, Pin. 742 101 Pin-742 201 [Pan No. Aabck 7051 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.L. Kochar, Advocate & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-Murshidabad U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 13.02.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Having Deleted The Addition To Income For Rs.30628425/- As Alleged Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Value Of Stock.”

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

case are missing. 7.5 We also find that the statement recorded during the survey proceedings u/s. 131 of the Act does not have any evidentiary value. Therefore, the same cannot be used as a basis for making such addition. In this regard, the decision of the Honourable Madras High Court