← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

held that the case referred to relates to the case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being a criminal case, the evidentiary value in such cases requires to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the assessee's case, being a case of civil nature, proving preponderance of the probabilities ... entries to such a person. Such seized material is liable to be treated as unsubstantiated,unsupportedor 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 ITA Nos.3188 - 3192/Chny/2024 & CO Nos.22 - 26/Chny/2025

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

ITA 3191/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 28.04.2025 : 30.06.2025 Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

held that the case referred to relates to the case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being a criminal case, the evidentiary value in such cases requires to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the assessee's case, being a case of civil nature, proving preponderance of the probabilities

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Sri Rama Jewellery Mart, Trichy

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3334/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit Sri Rama Jewellery Mart बनाम/ Vs. Central Circle-2, # 170, Big Bazar Trichy. Trichy-620 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabfs-0686-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Guathami Manivasagam (Jcit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj & Shri S. Girish Kumar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 29-10-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 29-09-2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: - 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.51,80,002/- Made Towards Unexplained Money U/S.69A & In Accepting That The Assessee Was Able To Demonstrate The Availability Of Cash, Including Cash Sales That Were Properly Recorded In The Books Of Accounts & Submitted Relevant Supporting Documents, Including The Cash Book, Which Reflected The Cash Balance Of Rs.51,80,002/-Without Appreciating The Fact That The Cash

For Appellant: Ms. Guathami Manivasagam (JCIT) - Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj & Shri S. Girish Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

sustainable. 4.2 So far as the statement of managing partner as recorded u/s 133A was concerned, the same would not hold conclusive evidentiary value unless corroborated by other substantive evidences. In the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan ... confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court (reported as 352 ITR 480), such statements u/s 133A would not carry much evidentiary value. Therefore, the statement made by the managing partner could not be treated as prime evidence for making impugned addition especially when no corroborating material or evidence was brought

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 566/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 153CSection 153D

said addition is made only on the basis of jottings made in the Diary and is merely based on suspicion and surmise lacking any evidentiary value. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that it is a settled law (Common Cause and Jian Diary case) that addition cannot be made

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 565/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. D. Anand, Advocate Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. 05.05.2025 27.06.2025 आदेश /Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

Section 153CSection 153D

said addition is made only on the basis of jottings made in the Diary and is merely based on suspicion and surmise lacking any evidentiary value. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that it is a settled law (Common Cause and Jian Diary case) that addition cannot be made

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 563/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: आदेश /Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 153CSection 153D

said addition is made only on the basis of jottings made in the Diary and is merely based on suspicion and surmise lacking any evidentiary value. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that it is a settled law (Common Cause and Jian Diary case) that addition cannot be made