← 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 WD 2(1) Kol, Kolkata vs. Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2213/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd….………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Commerce House, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Room No.4, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaacu8963B] C.O. 53/Kol/2024 (In Ita No.2213/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd.….………………. ….……….…….……….……Cross-Objector Commerce House, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Room No.4, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaacu8963B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

VikashChowdhary which was recorded u/s 133A during search and the statement was retraced very next day and hence such statement did not have any evidentiary value. 7. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the facts of the case and find that ... guise of share capital and the said statement was retracted on the very next day i.e. on 11.09.2015 and such retraced statement has no evidentiary value as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son[2012] 25 taxmann.com 413/210 Taxman