← 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

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. K. Mart, Prem Darwaja

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

ITA 1323/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1323/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3) Ahmedabad K. Mart 38, Teliya Mill Compound O/S. Prem Darwaja Ahmedabad – 380 002 बनाम / V/S. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfk 2520 R अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 27.05.2024 Passed For

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

assessee or routed through its books. 8.3. The entire addition is based on generalized information received from a third-party survey and lacks any evidentiary value in the absence of 8 ITA No.1323/Ahd/2024 The Income Tax Officer vs. K.Mart Asst. Year: 2017-18 corroboration. It is trite law that documents

M/S Agroha Ornaments, Gwalior vs. ACIT., Central, Gwalior

ITA 135/AGR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.135/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Agroha Ornaments Acit (Central) बनाम/ Solid Gold Plaza, Sarafa Bazar Gwalior Vs. Lashkar, Gwalior 474011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abgfa-1001-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.586/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit (Central) M/S Agroha Ornaments बनाम/ Gwalior Solid Gold Plaza, Sarafa Bazar Vs. Lashkar, Gwalior 474011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abgfa-1001-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijayawargiya (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijayawargiya (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69A

find any such incriminating material, there is no question of examination and recording of statement. In such a case, the admission would lose its evidentiary value. This provision embedded in sub-section (4) is obviously based on the well-established rule of evidence that mere confessional statement without there being

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 7283/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekita No:- 7283/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. 205, 2Nd Floor, Samarpan, Central Circle-13, Chakala Link Road, New Delhi. Andheri East, Mumbai. Pan No: Aabcl3501H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. & Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

erred on facts and in law in observing that the statement recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 has no evidentiary value despite the fact that specific details and corroborative banking transactions were identified by the entry operator. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts ... quite erroneous and Ld. CIT(A) strangely observed that the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value despite the fact that specific details and corroborative banking transactions were identified by the entry operator and also gave finding that opportunity of cross examination was not being provided