← 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

Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.137/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ramesh Babu Segu, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Amrps2069N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ramesh Babu Segu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 19/11/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grouds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri K A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69CSection 80C

cash book extracted from a seized pen drive and two receipts seized from the premises of Polisetty Somasundaram, a third party. As regards the evidentiary value of the said seized pen drive, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the decision of the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal ... dated 18.08.2023, wherein the Tribunal categorically held that the contents of the seized pen drive and the cash book generated therefrom do not have evidentiary value in the absence of a valid certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was submitted that the said finding

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad

ITA 1277/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1277/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Vs. Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad. Pan: Amrps2069N (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Hyd/2025 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1277/Hyd/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad. Pan: Amrps2069N (Appellant) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad ("Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11/10/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Also Raised The Cross Objection For The A.Y.2017-

For Appellant: Shri K A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 65BSection 69C

electronic record as evidence, as well as, the process for-creating electronic record. Importantly, they impart faithful output of computer the same evidentiary value as original without further proof or production of original Accordingly, while handling any digital evidence, the procedure has to be in consonance of these provisions." Further