← 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, Salem vs. Shri P. Anbazhagan, Komarapalayam

ITA 2183/CHNY/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee

P.Anbazhagan, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2179/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2178/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2177/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2176/CHNY/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2175/CHNY/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2174/CHNY/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee

Shri Anburaj Exports, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2173/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee

Shri Anburaj Exports, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2172/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

course of examination under Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore the statement made by the assessee under Section 132(4) has an evidentiary value. The matter would stand differently in case the addition was made on the basis of the statement made by the third party. Since, the assessee