← 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

P.Shanmugasundaram (HUF), Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1997/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition was made based on a loose sheet which has no evidentiary value 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the loose sheet does not contain any details about the appellant ... entries specifically related to Oppanakara street Property. The documents were only in the nature of dumb document and the same would hold not evidentiary value against the assessee. The seized material did not contain any reference to the assessee’s name, particulars of transactions etc. There were no corroborative / incriminating

Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan, Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle - 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1996/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition was made based on a loose sheet which has no evidentiary value 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the loose sheet does not contain any details about the appellant ... entries specifically related to Oppanakara street Property. The documents were only in the nature of dumb document and the same would hold not evidentiary value against the assessee. The seized material did not contain any reference to the assessee’s name, particulars of transactions etc. There were no corroborative / incriminating

Shanmugasundaram Umashankar, Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1995/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition was made based on a loose sheet which has no evidentiary value 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the loose sheet does not contain any details about the appellant ... entries specifically related to Oppanakara street Property. The documents were only in the nature of dumb document and the same would hold not evidentiary value against the assessee. The seized material did not contain any reference to the assessee’s name, particulars of transactions etc. There were no corroborative / incriminating

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennerasu, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1153/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

Some of the entries in different loose sheets such as name, amount paid both in cash and cheque are tallying with calculations. This proves evidentiary value of entries in loose sheets. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that the action of AO in making addition without bringing corroborative ... slip of paper has some correlation with the entries made in regular books of accounts, it cannot be called a dumb document and its evidentiary value cannot be ignored. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that cheque payments found in the loose sheets are exactly matching with sale deed, hence

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Amutha Thennarasu, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1152/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

Some of the entries in different loose sheets such as name, amount paid both in cash and cheque are tallying with calculations. This proves evidentiary value of entries in loose sheets. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that the action of AO in making addition without bringing corroborative ... slip of paper has some correlation with the entries made in regular books of accounts, it cannot be called a dumb document and its evidentiary value cannot be ignored. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that cheque payments found in the loose sheets are exactly matching with sale deed, hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

drive and the admission by the vendors of the property though may have a persuasive value but will not have much substantive evidentiary value in order to make additions in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderbad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

drive and the admission by the vendors of the property though may have a persuasive value but will not have much substantive evidentiary value in order to make additions in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete