← 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

Agm India Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 4757/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4757/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Agm India Advisors Private Limited Dcit,10-(1),Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, The Grand Hyatt Complex Mumbai-20. Vs. Suite F-11, Santacruz (E).,Mumbai-55. Pan: Aafcm 3354 D आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4801/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit,14(1)(1),460, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Agm India Advisors Private Limited. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 055. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand Appellant By: Shri Nishant Thakkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.04.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 18.05.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 143Section 254(1)

legible and it is also not known that when the printouts were taken.Thererfoere,in our opinion they have no evidentiary value for deciding the issues arising for the year under appeal. 24 4757/Mum/2015&4801/15-AGM Document A-5,is a newspaper article dated 10.03.2011 and hence has no relevance

Indian Education Society, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

The appeal is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: -- Indian Education Society, Vs. Cit 705- Yadav Colony, Aayakar Bhawan, Hisar (Hr.) Hisar (Hr.) (Pan: Aaati3921J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Dinesh Gupta, Ca & Raja Kumar, Adv. Department By: Shri A.K. Saroha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Appellant – Indian Education Society (The Society For Short) Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Cancellation Of Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By The Learned Cit On The Following Four Grounds: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessee Society Did Not Exist For Educational Purposes, Without Assigning Any Cogent Reasoning For This Conclusion; 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit Erred In Ordering Cancellation Of The Assessee’S Registration Under Section 12-Aa Of The Income-Tax Act;

For Appellant: S/Shri Dinesh Gupta, CA & RajaFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 12Section 12ASection 133A

remained the submission of the Appellant Society that these statements taken during survey u/s 133A of the Act recorded on oath have no evidentiary value. They cannot be taken cognizance of any legally valid proceedings under the Act. It was contended on the authority of the rulings