← 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

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mahavir Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Mahavir Associates Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), बनाम Gala No. 1, Apollo Chamber, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mogra Pada Road, Andheri Chambers, Mumbai – 400012, East, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.83/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1134/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2015-16) Mahavir Associates V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Gala No. 1, Apollo बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), Chamber, Mogra Pada 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Road, Andheri East, Chambers, Mumbai – 400 012, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By : Shri Narendra Patel, Ar Revenue By: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 144Section 41(1)

been stated that various judicial decisions have laid down that the statement given during the course of search or survey had their evidentiary value and cannot be brushed off and disregarded. However, once the appellant was able to reconcile the stock by way of documents and also demonstrate that liability

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Ramendra Nath Ghosh, 82 ITR 888 (SC). Such spot inquiry is not in accordance with law and has no creditability or any evidentiary value. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held to responsible merely on the basis of vague and illegal spot inquiry by inspector. 16. Without prejudice to the above ... mind on the basis of earlier assessment which were framed on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey without having any evidentiary value alongwith vague and invalid report of the ITI . This issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Tribunal in appellant own case vide order

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Ramendra Nath Ghosh, 82 ITR 888 (SC). Such spot inquiry is not in accordance with law and has no creditability or any evidentiary value. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held to responsible merely on the basis of vague and illegal spot inquiry by inspector. 16. Without prejudice to the above ... mind on the basis of earlier assessment which were framed on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey without having any evidentiary value alongwith vague and invalid report of the ITI . This issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Tribunal in appellant own case vide order