← 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

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt Ltd., Maharastra

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose, whereas the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2212/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No. 144/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of 306, Snehdisha, Parab Wadi, Income-Tax, Highway Road, Thane, Central Circle 1(1), Maharashtra Ahmedabad Pan : Aafcm 8859 D अपीलाथ"/ "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross-Objector) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 68

accommodation entries to be not sufficient ITA No. 2212/Ahd/2018 & CO No.144/Ahd/2019 ACIT Vs. Blueray Trading Pvt Ltd AY : 2010-11 3 or having no evidentiary value. On the contrary, he found the assessee to have discharged its onus of proving the share capital and premium so received to be genuine ... view taken by the Assessing Officer of all adverse material before him, but has gone on to reject each evidence singularly as having no evidentiary value. The ld. CIT(A), we find, has literally not applied his mind at all to the case made out by the Assessing Officer