← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1316/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1315/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1314/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1313/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1312/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

V.V. Ttitanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, CC-2., Madurai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1305/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

V.V. Ttitanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, CC-2, Madurai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1304/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

V.V. Ttitanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, CC-2., Madurai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1303/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

V.V. Ttitanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, CC-2, Madurai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1301/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

presumption u/s 132(4A) would not arise. The assessee also submitted that the sheet was an unsigned sheet and it would thus, have no evidentiary value. The Ld. AO did not make any enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheet. On the issue of entries in the notebooks ... There was no corroboration from any of the party and the evidence being relied upon by Ld. AO was merely hearsay evidence carrying no evidentiary value. At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee company nor by the witnesses or by an authorized

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1023/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

disputed addition. 14. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the seized material relied upon by the Assessing Officer had no evidentiary value and further ought to have appreciated that the addition made solely based on the statement recorded at the time of search and the loose sheet ... that during the course of the assessment as well as appellate proceedings, the appellant had taken a stand that these sheets would have no evidentiary value since the same merely contain projections to examine the project feasibility of a construction project which has been carried out in subsequent years

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1022/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1022/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

disputed addition. 21. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the seized material relied upon by the Assessing Officer had no evidentiary value and further ought to have appreciated that the addition made solely based on the statement recorded at the time of search and the loose sheet ... original statement during search proceedings. It was, therefore, submitted that the addition based on single excel sheet as maintained by Sh. Vinoth had no evidentiary value and no corroborative documents were seized for the source or application as stated in the sworn statements of both Sh. Vinoth and Sh. Anandavadivel