← 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

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

submitted that the loose sheets, in the instant case, extracts of the ledger named “SABARI” from the JPACK software have no evidentiary value and the additions based on the same without any corroborative evidence is not valid in the eyes of law. In support of the same

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

submitted that the loose sheets, in the instant case, extracts of the ledger named “SABARI” from the JPACK software have no evidentiary value and the additions based on the same without any corroborative evidence is not valid in the eyes of law. In support of the same

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

submitted that the loose sheets, in the instant case, extracts of the ledger named “SABARI” from the JPACK software have no evidentiary value and the additions based on the same without any corroborative evidence is not valid in the eyes of law. In support of the same

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4993/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

narration and did not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they were in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, thus, no addition can be made ... narration and did not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they were in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, thus, no addition can be made

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

narration and did not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they were in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, thus, no addition can be made ... narration and did not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they were in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, thus, no addition can be made

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC 03, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4643/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

narration and did not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they were in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, thus, no addition can be made ... narration and did not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they were in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, thus, no addition can be made

Ketkiben Samirbhai Jani, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

ITA 544/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.544/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Ketkiben Samirbhai Jani 11/12 Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Chamber Building,, Jaishree Talkies Road, Near Sardar Patel Bhavan, Junagadh. 362001, Bhoothnath Chambers, College Road, Junagadh 362001 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abupj1530B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 21/03/2024, U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 1

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessing officer mentioned the name of a different individual, that is, Manish Parmar, and that the documents relied upon are unsigned and therefore lack evidentiary value. The ld.Counsel also stated that assessee has also denied making any on-money payment and has claimed that she held only 1/3rd share

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

said entries were fictitious or intended to artificially reduce the taxable income. Accordingly, it was argued that the statement of Shri S.Ramesh carries no evidentiary value and, therefore, cannot form the sole basis for sustaining the impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. 44. With respect to the A.Y.2015-16 ... placed by the AO on the statement of Shri S.Ramesh, Assistant Manager (Accounts), we are of the considered opinion that such statement holds no evidentiary value. The reason being that despite the existence of seized material in the form of payment vouchers and wage registers clearly indicating that no worker

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1875/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

said entries were fictitious or intended to artificially reduce the taxable income. Accordingly, it was argued that the statement of Shri S.Ramesh carries no evidentiary value and, therefore, cannot form the sole basis for sustaining the impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. 44. With respect to the A.Y.2015-16 ... placed by the AO on the statement of Shri S.Ramesh, Assistant Manager (Accounts), we are of the considered opinion that such statement holds no evidentiary value. The reason being that despite the existence of seized material in the form of payment vouchers and wage registers clearly indicating that no worker

P.S.R. Tiles Park, Karaikkal vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri. S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 947/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष& / Assessment Year: 2017-18 P.S.R. Tiles Park, Acit, 2, Three Well Plaza Street, Vs. Circle -2(1), Karaikkal – 609 602. Trichy. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aakfp-1855-E] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*थ(/Respondent) अपीलाथ( की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate )*थ( की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

submitted that the assessee was maintaining stock register and filed VAT returns regularly. Furthermore, ld. AR submitted that statement recorded during survey has no evidentiary value and any admission solely made during the statement recorded during the survey u/s.133A of the Act, cannot be allowed to be the basis ... statement given during the course of survey is not a statement on oath as given u/s.132(4) of the Act and had no evidentiary value and further contended that reliance should have been place upon the evidence/ material gathered during the course of survey operations while framing the assessment orders

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

such a person. Such seized material is liable to be treated as a unsubstantiated, unsupported or unverified document, which does not have any evidentiary value in respect of the entries found therein, unless corroborative evidence is available which can provide necessary reliable basis for deciphering that the narration contained ... fixed deposit receipt issued by a bank in favour of a particular person are merely the documents of title which, though possessing much evidentiary value, do not possess any intrinsic market value." 6.9 "There is nothing in the record to show that the fixed deposit receipts, which are seized

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

such a person. Such seized material is liable to be treated as a unsubstantiated, unsupported or unverified document, which does not have any evidentiary value in respect of the entries found therein, unless corroborative evidence is available which can provide necessary reliable basis for deciphering that the narration contained ... fixed deposit receipt issued by a bank in favour of a particular person are merely the documents of title which, though possessing much evidentiary value, do not possess any intrinsic market value." 6.9 "There is nothing in the record to show that the fixed deposit receipts, which are seized

M/S. Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

Crores. 39. It is the claim of the assessee that the statements is devoid of evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon for adverse inference. The so-called voluntary declarations were recorded at an unreasonably odd hour, around 4:00 AM, under mental and physical stress during the course

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing are found during the search. It is to be noted that evidentiary value could have been provided to the dumb papers, the statement of the finance brokers should have been recorded relating to thetransactions with the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing are found during the search. It is to be noted that evidentiary value could have been provided to the dumb papers, the statement of the finance brokers should have been recorded relating to thetransactions with the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3936/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)

disregarded or\nviewed with circumspection, the diaries themselves, in the\nabsence of any corroboration, were nothing but “dumb\ndocuments" incapable of independent evidentiary value. They\nwere not part of the books of account, bore no authentication,\nand were admittedly maintained by a non-director employee\nfor his own personal convenience ... celebrated “Birla-Sahara\nDiaries\" case wherein the Court had categorically held that\nuncorroborated third-party records found in the course of\nsearch have no evidentiary value whatsoever.\n\n28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from\nthe jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the\n“dumb document

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3928/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)

disregarded or\nviewed with circumspection, the diaries themselves, in the\nabsence of any corroboration, were nothing but “dumb\ndocuments" incapable of independent evidentiary value. They\nwere not part of the books of account, bore no authentication,\nand were admittedly maintained by a non-director employee\nfor his own personal convenience ... celebrated “Birla-Sahara\nDiaries\" case wherein the Court had categorically held that\nuncorroborated third-party records found in the course of\nsearch have no evidentiary value whatsoever.\n\n28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from\nthe jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the\n“dumb document

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3228/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)

disregarded or\nviewed with circumspection, the diaries themselves, in the\nabsence of any corroboration, were nothing but \"dumb\ndocuments\" incapable of independent evidentiary value. They\nwere not part of the books of account, bore no authentication,\nand were admittedly maintained by a non-director employee\nfor his own personal convenience ... celebrated “Birla-Sahara\nDiaries\" case wherein the Court had categorically held that\nuncorroborated third-party records found in the course of\nsearch have no evidentiary value whatsoever.\n\n28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from\nthe jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the\n“dumb document

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

disregarded or viewed with circumspection, the diaries themselves, in the absence of any corroboration, were nothing but ―dumb documents‖ incapable of independent evidentiary value. They were not part of the books of account, bore no authentication, and were admittedly maintained by a non-director employee for his own personal convenience ... celebrated ―Birla–Sahara Diaries‖ case wherein the Court had categorically held that uncorroborated third-party records found in the course of search have no evidentiary value whatsoever. 28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from the jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the ―dumb document‖ principle. Reference

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

disregarded or viewed with circumspection, the diaries themselves, in the absence of any corroboration, were nothing but “dumb documents" incapable of independent evidentiary value. They were not part of the books of account, bore no authentication, and were admittedly maintained by a non-director employee for his own personal convenience ... celebrated “Birla-Sahara Diaries" case wherein the Court had categorically held that uncorroborated third-party records found in the course of search have no evidentiary value whatsoever.\n\n28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from the jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the “dumb document" principle