← 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

Leela Ram Choudhary, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 104/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.103-105/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) Leela Ram Choudhary Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan :Ahapc0813E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.99/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mahadev Choudhary Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aprpc4388M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.100/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Ashok Kumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan :Hnypk3276C] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 02/05/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala
Section 153CSection 282Section 69

Choudhary and Others i.e.employee of Rubberwala group and not from the premise of Rubberwala and hence such pen drive does not have any evidentiary value. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not brought any other document which prove that the Appellant paid cash towards purchase ... apart from excel sheet and oath statement of Mr.Ansari which does not have any evidentiary value and is a dumb document. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not provided any opportunity of cross examination in respect of the statement made by M/s Rubberwala housing

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 31/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

further contended that the evidences gathered during the search along with the statements recorded from the officials/office bearers of the Trust have a great evidentiary value and in the absence of rebuttal on the part of the assessee, the additions made on the basis of the said evidence is justified

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 30/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

further contended that the evidences gathered during the search along with the statements recorded from the officials/office bearers of the Trust have a great evidentiary value and in the absence of rebuttal on the part of the assessee, the additions made on the basis of the said evidence is justified

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1798/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

further contended that the evidences gathered during the search along with the statements recorded from the officials/office bearers of the Trust have a great evidentiary value and in the absence of rebuttal on the part of the assessee, the additions made on the basis of the said evidence is justified

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1797/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

further contended that the evidences gathered during the search along with the statements recorded from the officials/office bearers of the Trust have a great evidentiary value and in the absence of rebuttal on the part of the assessee, the additions made on the basis of the said evidence is justified

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Kathik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1796/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

further contended that the evidences gathered during the search along with the statements recorded from the officials/office bearers of the Trust have a great evidentiary value and in the absence of rebuttal on the part of the assessee, the additions made on the basis of the said evidence is justified