← 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-1, Trichy vs. Ahamed Brothers, Trichy

ITA 935/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.934/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.935/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 आयकर अपील सं./ Co72/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy Ahamed Brothers, No.21/1, Singarathope, Trichy Tamil Nadu-620008. [Aahfa7608P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : आदेश / Order S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appel-Lant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 69A

Madras High Court in the case of Khader Khan sons 352 ITR 0480 holding that sworn statements recorded u/s 133A do not have any evidentiary value. Reliance was also placed by the assessee upon CBDT instructions bearing no. 286 / 2 / 2003 IT (INV.II) dated 10.03.2003 stipulating, inter-alia, that ... case of the assessee that the alleged sworn statement recorded during the survey was subsequently retracted and hence it looses its evidentiary value or for that matter any relevance to the facts of the case. The Ld. Counsel has further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court

M/S. Sbs Agencies, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1894/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Agencies, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 079. Chennai [Pan: Aalfs9107M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Add.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

Khadar Khan & Sons 25 taxmann.com 413. He argued that Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the statements recorded during survey proceedings have any evidentiary value when corroborated with conclusive evidences and that in the present case the disclosures have been corroborated by necessary entries in the return of income ... evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement recorded under section 133A of the Act is not given an evidentiary value, vide a decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax [(2003) 263 I.T.R. 101]. 5.4. The scope

DCIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga vs. M/S Trimurty Concern Pvt Ltd, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.144/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga…………………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. M/S Trimurti Concern Pvt. Ltd………………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 74, Bengali Colony, Muzaffarpur- 842001. [Pan: Aadct0534G] C.O. No.05/Pat/2022 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.144/Pat/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Trimurti Concern Pvt. Ltd ……………………………………….…..Cross-Objector 74, Bengali Colony, Muzaffarpur- 842001. [Pan: Aadct0534G] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga............................................. …........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Jyoti, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Under Ita No.144/Pat/2019 Against The Order Dated 20.02.2019 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & Additionally, The Assessee Has Filed Corresponding Cross-Objections In C.O No.05/Pat/2022 For Assessment Years 2014-15. I.T.A. No.144/Pat/2019 & C.O. No.05/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Trimurti Concern Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)

days which has raised suspicion about their authenticity. The ld. DR stated that the expenses were supported by self-generated vouchers which have limited evidentiary value. Moreover, the assessee failed to produce ledger and supporting documents before the Assessing Officer for verification. He, therefore, argued that