← 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

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

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

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.

394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

Mangesh D Gaikar, Kalyan West vs. ACIT Central Circle-2 Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5074/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarshri Mangesh D. Gaikar, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Mangeshi बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Sahara, Near Chhatri 2, Thane,6Th Floor, A- Wing, Bunglow, Chikanghar, Kalyan Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, West - 421301, Maharashtra Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W) – 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afapg5995H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad,CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

income of Rs.43,72,141/-, the assessee contended that the documents found during the search were unsigned and undated and did not carry any evidentiary value. The declaration of Rs.43,72,141/- was voluntary and therefore no penalty on this additional income should be levied. However, the AO held

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 187/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

revenue contentions are that the Directors during the course of survey proceedings recorded statement under section 133A of the Act which has no evidentiary value and the addition cannot be made based on such statements. 19. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader ... Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the statements given by the Directors of the assessee company during the Survey proceedings has an evidentiary value in the light of concurrent corroborative evidences.The CIT(A) has erred in notconsidering the evidence that was found and seized in the form

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 186/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

revenue contentions are that the Directors during the course of survey proceedings recorded statement under section 133A of the Act which has no evidentiary value and the addition cannot be made based on such statements. 19. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader ... Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the statements given by the Directors of the assessee company during the Survey proceedings has an evidentiary value in the light of concurrent corroborative evidences.The CIT(A) has erred in notconsidering the evidence that was found and seized in the form

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 185/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

revenue contentions are that the Directors during the course of survey proceedings recorded statement under section 133A of the Act which has no evidentiary value and the addition cannot be made based on such statements. 19. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader ... Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the statements given by the Directors of the assessee company during the Survey proceedings has an evidentiary value in the light of concurrent corroborative evidences.The CIT(A) has erred in notconsidering the evidence that was found and seized in the form

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 184/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

revenue contentions are that the Directors during the course of survey proceedings recorded statement under section 133A of the Act which has no evidentiary value and the addition cannot be made based on such statements. 19. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader ... Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the statements given by the Directors of the assessee company during the Survey proceedings has an evidentiary value in the light of concurrent corroborative evidences.The CIT(A) has erred in notconsidering the evidence that was found and seized in the form

Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 148/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

revenue contentions are that the Directors during the course of survey proceedings recorded statement under section 133A of the Act which has no evidentiary value and the addition cannot be made based on such statements. 19. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader ... Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the statements given by the Directors of the assessee company during the Survey proceedings has an evidentiary value in the light of concurrent corroborative evidences.The CIT(A) has erred in notconsidering the evidence that was found and seized in the form

Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 147/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

revenue contentions are that the Directors during the course of survey proceedings recorded statement under section 133A of the Act which has no evidentiary value and the addition cannot be made based on such statements. 19. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader ... Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the statements given by the Directors of the assessee company during the Survey proceedings has an evidentiary value in the light of concurrent corroborative evidences.The CIT(A) has erred in notconsidering the evidence that was found and seized in the form

Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 146/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

revenue contentions are that the Directors during the course of survey proceedings recorded statement under section 133A of the Act which has no evidentiary value and the addition cannot be made based on such statements. 19. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader ... Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the statements given by the Directors of the assessee company during the Survey proceedings has an evidentiary value in the light of concurrent corroborative evidences.The CIT(A) has erred in notconsidering the evidence that was found and seized in the form

Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 145/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

revenue contentions are that the Directors during the course of survey proceedings recorded statement under section 133A of the Act which has no evidentiary value and the addition cannot be made based on such statements. 19. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader ... Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, the statements given by the Directors of the assessee company during the Survey proceedings has an evidentiary value in the light of concurrent corroborative evidences.The CIT(A) has erred in notconsidering the evidence that was found and seized in the form

Bhoop Singh Poonia, Nohar vs. ITO Ward, Nohar

ITA 405/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR)

Section 133ASection 142(1)

reasoning is based on general observation, namely, loose papers were found, proper record was not maintained, therefore, assessee has surrendered. Let us evaluate the evidentiary value of the statement given by the assessee for surrendering this sum of Rs.70 lacs. This position has been analytically examined ... Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the Income-tax Act it is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorised to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value

Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia, Nagpur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income (Central) Circle - 1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

CONTENTIONS:– iii. The contention of the assessee that there is no date specified on the agreement, cannot be sole reason to question the evidentiary value of the agreement, having said so, date of the agreement can be very well inferred to be October, 2016 as the stamp paper is purchased ... importantly, it is to be noted that the impugned agreement is on stamp paper, which indicates the intention of the parties to give it evidentiary value. Otherwise draft agreement could also be made on Plain paper. It is further pertinent to mention that said stamp paper was purchased by Brindish

News Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1769/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshnews Builders & Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd, Ward-18(2), 1St Floor, Property No. 1, Delhi Khasra No. 619/7, Opposite Tivoli Garden, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccn4173E

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

undated and unsigned on which fact there is absolutely no dispute. Hence, the said document cannot be construed as a document having any evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Hence, accordingly, the same has to be construed as a mere dumb document. In any case, the said document ... forgetting the fact that the said draft agreement found in the hard disk was neither signed nor dated and not carrying any evidentiary value. The assessee always pleaded that it had not paid any on-money or cash on account of purchase of property. It pleaded that all the payments

Vision Exports, Moradabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Moradabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vision Exports, Vs Acit, Faridpur, Sambhal Road, Central Circle, Moradabad – 244 001, Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aajfv0634Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ca; Shri Mohammad Ammar, Ca & Shri Tariq Nafees, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Lucknow-3/10314/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 30.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle, Moradabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

taxmann.com 275 (Bombay) where it is held that statement declaring undisclosed income by assessee being recorded after date of search, could be of no evidentiary value in terms of section 132(4). Then ld. AR has submitted that the amount of Rs.700.00 lacs finds its genesis from the bills, vouchers ... admission was made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and the admission made in the statement recorded u/s 131(1A) has no evidentiary value and the onus is upon the Revenue to bring corroborative material/evidence on record either during the search or post search proceeding to prove the existence

M/S. K World Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6184/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 K. World Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, B-2/4, Plot No.2, Central Circle-8, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. Db Gupta Road, Near Faiz Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. Pan: Aadck8693B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : .06.2025

For Appellant: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, DrFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 260ASection 68

statement of Mr. Jindal, which according to them is the incriminating material discovered during the search action. This statement certainly has the evidentiary value and relevance as contemplated under the explanation to section 132(4) of the Act. However, this statement cannot, on a standalone basis, without reference

Baiju Lekshmanan, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 Baiju Lekshmanan Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, V. Alappuzha Marackasseril, Atiramthengu, Alumpeedika Po, Prayar South, Kollam – 690547. Pan : Ambpl8921A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 17 Days. An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay For 17 Days Has Been Filed By The Assessee Explaining Reasons For Such Delay. We, After Considering The Application For Condoning The Delay, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Shaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69A

additional evidence as valid under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules at this stage. Therefore, we find that the assessee’s claim lacks of evidentiary value and no interference is warranted with the findings of the lower authorities. We, therefore, do not find any merit of the present appeal

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 680/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

found available at Pages 975 to 978 of Paper Book. Having taken note of this fact, we agree with the assessee that, the evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the Act cannot be equated with his statement ... Accordingly, we hold that this statement of Mr. Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the Act alone cannot be said to carry evidentiary value. According to us, such a statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act can be said to be valid and be used for the purpose of assessment, only

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 153A

Book. Having taken note of this fact, we agree with the assessee that, the is fact, we agree with the assessee that, the evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the evidentiary ... alone cannot be this statement of Mr. Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the Act alone cannot be said to carry evidentiary value. A said to carry evidentiary value. According to us, such a ccording to us, such a statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act recorded

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 153A

Book. Having taken note of this fact, we agree with the assessee that, the is fact, we agree with the assessee that, the evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the evidentiary ... alone cannot be this statement of Mr. Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the Act alone cannot be said to carry evidentiary value. A said to carry evidentiary value. According to us, such a ccording to us, such a statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act recorded

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 153A

Book. Having taken note of this fact, we agree with the assessee that, the is fact, we agree with the assessee that, the evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the evidentiary ... alone cannot be this statement of Mr. Stanley recorded u/s 131 of the Act alone cannot be said to carry evidentiary value. A said to carry evidentiary value. According to us, such a ccording to us, such a statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act recorded

Tilara Polyplast Private Limited, Shapar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 68

balance sheets indicating specific cash balances on particular dates, are self-serving in Tilara Polyplast Private Limited vs. ITO nature and hold minimal evidentiary value. These documents cannot be solely relied upon to substantiate the claims made by the assessee, especially when they lack corroboration from independent and credible sources