← 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

Vijetha Donthiri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1355/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1355/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Vijetha Donthiri, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Pan:Alqpd4873P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/ 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 20/08/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vijetha Donthiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 29.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

Delhi High Courts, it is clear that, a statement of assessee at the time of search on standalone basis has no evidentiary value and cannot be acted upon to fasten any liability on the assessee. Hence we hold that, a statement alone does not constitute incriminating material, unless backed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

third-party premises cannot form the sole basis for addition unless corroborated. Further a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has evidentiary value but cannot be the sole basis for an addition without corroborative evidence, as held in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State ... recovered from a digital system at an office or as a physical sheet from a residence, casts serious doubt on the authenticity and evidentiary value of the material. This mutual inconsistency undermines the reliability of the very foundation on which the Assessing Officer seeks to correlate the statements