← 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

Dr. Shruti Ramrao Shejole, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road vs. Hitendrakumar Bhailalbhai Patel, Navjivan Post Naranpura

ITA 664/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

assessee might have paid the on-money in subsequent deal. Even the alleged WhatsApp message exchanged between third parties, which otherwise has no evidentiary value, did not mention either the name assessee GSG Abode nor of any of the sellers and even there was no mention of any details

Dr. Shruti Ramrao Shejole, Aashram Road vs. Harshadkumar Kantilal Savaliya, Iscon Temple Ahmedabad

ITA 663/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

assessee might have paid the on-money in subsequent deal. Even the alleged WhatsApp message exchanged between third parties, which otherwise has no evidentiary value, did not mention either the name assessee GSG Abode nor of any of the sellers and even there was no mention of any details

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road Ahmedabad vs. Kantibhai Tapubhai Savalia, Scon Tample Ahmedabad

ITA 662/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

assessee might have paid the on-money in subsequent deal. Even the alleged WhatsApp message exchanged between third parties, which otherwise has no evidentiary value, did not mention either the name assessee GSG Abode nor of any of the sellers and even there was no mention of any details

DCIT, Cental Circle 2(3), Kolkata vs. Lumino Industries Limited, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Lumino Industries Ltd……………………............…..….…..….......……...…..…..Respondent Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] C.O No.57/Kol/2025 (In I.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lumino Industries Ltd.......................................................................……….…Cross-Objector Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata ……………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objections D By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Ay 2014-15. 02. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By 7 Days By The Revenue, For Which, Condonation Petition Has Been Filed. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed By The Revenue, We Are Of The View That The

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

filing evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. Assessing Officer has acted on the basis of statements of three persons, which lacks evidentiary value in absence of any substantive and corroborative evidences being brought on records. The ld. AR stated that where the AO has any doubt about