← 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

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

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1020/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1019/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1020/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) 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 : 18-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. Facts As Well As Issues Are Stated To Be Substantially The Same In Both The Years. 1.2 First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251

related findings. 12. The CIT (Appeals)- 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the loose sheets relied upon by the lower authorities had no evidentiary value there by vitiating the related findings. 13. The CIT (Appeals)- 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the entire re computation of the taxable total income

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

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1019/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1019/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1020/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) 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 : 18-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. Facts As Well As Issues Are Stated To Be Substantially The Same In Both The Years. 1.2 First, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251

related findings. 12. The CIT (Appeals)- 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the loose sheets relied upon by the lower authorities had no evidentiary value there by vitiating the related findings. 13. The CIT (Appeals)- 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the entire re computation of the taxable total income