← 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 40, Mumbai vs. Gibs Computers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2066/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपी अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.2066/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपी अपी िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 2071/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year- 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-Central Circle-40 M/S.Gibs Computers Ltd. 6Th Room No.653, Floor, Radha Bhavan, 121 Nagindas Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs Master Road Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 023. Pan: Aabcg 0096 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Neelkanth Khandelwal राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Ms. Sasmita Misra--Cit-Dr, िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2016 Order लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य बी बी.आर आर. बा बा"करन "करन केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per B.R. Baskaran, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य बी बी आर आर बा बा "करन "करन अनुसार अनुसार The Revenue Has Filed These Two Appeals Challenging The Orders Passed By Ld Cit(A)-36, Mumbai For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Since Issue Urged In Both The Appeals Is Identical In Nature, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of Ld Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Sasmita Misra--CIT-DR
Section 68

ITAT further held that statements recorded during the course of investigation by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata without any corroborative evidence had no evidentiary value. It may be pertinent to advert to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case for A.Y.2005-06 & 2006-07 where ... addition. 6.5 It is settled proposition of law that the statement recorded during the course of investigation without corroborative evidence has no evidentiary value. It is pertinent to mention that the statements recorded in this case are not under search or survey or assessment proceedings therefore the same cannot