The addition is based on loose sheets and a diary seized in a search. Is that admissible?
Not on their own. Loose sheets and scraps are not 'books of account' under s.34 of the Evidence Act because they can be detached and replaced at will, and even entries in properly kept books are not by themselves sufficient to charge anyone with liability without independent evidence of the transaction.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Arun Mishra J and Amitava Roy J) on 2017-01-11, reported as [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC); (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC); (2017) 245 Taxman 214 (SC); (2018) 9 SCC 382. It bears on section Evidence Act s.34 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Search, Survey & Block Assessment matters.
This is the leading authority against additions built on dumb documents, unauthenticated scraps and third-party diaries, and it gives you two limbs rather than one: the material may fail admissibility altogether, and even if it clears that bar it cannot stand alone. It matters wherever the department's case is a photocopied sheet with figures and initials on it and nothing more.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Common Cause and others had filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and a Vigilance Commissioner. Within that petition they moved two interlocutory applications asking for a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored investigation into material seized in raids on the Aditya Birla group in October 2013 and on the Sahara India group in November 2014: random sheets and loose papers, computer printouts, a hard disk, pen drives and an e-mail entry recovered from an executive's laptop, said to record cash payments to political functionaries. The Attorney General and the Additional Solicitor General resisted, pointing out that the documents were not account books maintained in the regular course of business and that in Sahara's case the Income Tax Settlement Commission had already found the entries non-genuine and of no evidentiary value.
What the Court dismissed were two interlocutory applications, not the writ petition. The applications asked for a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored investigation into the material seized from the Birla and Sahara groups; the Court held that no case was made out to direct any investigation against the persons named in those documents, because entries in loose sheets and scraps of paper are irrelevant and inadmissible under s.34 of the Evidence Act, being neither books of account nor regularly kept in the course of business, and because entries even in properly kept books are not alone sufficient to charge a person with liability without independent evidence of the transaction. The Court expressly said it had not examined the main writ petition, which challenged the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (para 15); that challenge was left undecided by this order.
The Court took the law on such material from C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla, which it followed: entries in loose papers and sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible under s.34 because a 'book' means sheets bound so that they cannot be disturbed or altered, loose sheets being detachable and replaceable at will; and even where entries in a regularly kept book are relevant and admissible, they are corroborative only, so independent evidence of the transaction is required before liability can be fastened. Applying that, the Court found the Birla and Sahara material was not maintained in the regular course of business and therefore lacked the reliability needed to found a police investigation. In Sahara's case there was the further circumstance that the Settlement Commission had recorded that the transactions noted in the documents were not genuine and had attached no evidentiary value to the pen drive, hard disk, loose papers and printouts, so those documents could have no evidentiary value against third parties either. Lalita Kumari, which requires investigation once a cognizable offence appears from a complaint, was distinguished as no help where the documents relied on are per se not cognizable in law as evidence; a roving enquiry cannot be ordered on legally unsustainable material. Applying the Bhajan Lal principles for quashing an FIR, the Court held the material was not good enough to direct registration of an FIR or an investigation. It added a caution of general application: if investigation could be ordered on irrelevant or inadmissible entries falsely made by an unscrupulous person on random papers, the process of law could be abused against all and sundry, and no constitutional functionary could function independently.
loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under Section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot on their own. Loose sheets and scraps are not 'books of account' under s.34 of the Evidence Act because they can be detached and replaced at will, and even entries in properly kept books are not by themselves sufficient to charge anyone with liability without independent evidence of the transaction. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Arun Mishra J and Amitava Roy J) and bears on section Evidence Act s.34 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC); (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC); (2017) 245 Taxman 214 (SC); (2018) 9 SCC 382. This is the leading authority against additions built on dumb documents, unauthenticated scraps and third-party diaries, and it gives you two limbs rather than one: the material may fail admissibility altogether, and even if it clears that bar it cannot stand alone. It matters wherever the department's case is a photocopied sheet with figures and initials on it and nothing more. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Get the seized material described accurately on the record, because whether it is a loose sheet or a bound book regularly maintained in the course of business decides the first limb.
Common Cause and others had filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and a Vigilance Commissioner. Within that petition they moved two interlocutory applications asking for a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored investigation into material seized in raids on the Aditya Birla group in October 2013 and on the Sahara India group in November 2014: random sheets and loose papers, computer printouts, a hard disk, pen drives and an e-mail entry recovered from an executive's laptop, said to record cash payments to political functionaries. The Attorney General and the Additional Solicitor General resisted, pointing out that the documents were not account books maintained in the regular course of business and that in Sahara's case the Income Tax Settlement Commission had already found the entries non-genuine and of no evidentiary value. The matter was decided on 2017-01-11 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Arun Mishra J and Amitava Roy J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. What the Court dismissed were two interlocutory applications, not the writ petition. The applications asked for a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored investigation into the material seized from the Birla and Sahara groups; the Court held that no case was made out to direct any investigation against the persons named in those documents, because entries in loose sheets and scraps of paper are irrelevant and inadmissible under s.34 of the Evidence Act, being neither books of account nor regularly kept in the course of business, and because entries even in properly kept books are not alone sufficient to charge a person with liability without independent evidence of the transaction. The Court expressly said it had not examined the main writ petition, which challenged the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (para 15); that challenge was left undecided by this order.
The Court took the law on such material from C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla, which it followed: entries in loose papers and sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible under s.34 because a 'book' means sheets bound so that they cannot be disturbed or altered, loose sheets being detachable and replaceable at will; and even where entries in a regularly kept book are relevant and admissible, they are corroborative only, so independent evidence of the transaction is required before liability can be fastened. Applying that, the Court found the Birla and Sahara material was not maintained in the regular course of business and therefore lacked the reliability needed to found a police investigation. In Sahara's case there was the further circumstance that the Settlement Commission had recorded that the transactions noted in the documents were not genuine and had attached no evidentiary value to the pen drive, hard disk, loose papers and printouts, so those documents could have no evidentiary value against third parties either. Lalita Kumari, which requires investigation once a cognizable offence appears from a complaint, was distinguished as no help where the documents relied on are per se not cognizable in law as evidence; a roving enquiry cannot be ordered on legally unsustainable material. Applying the Bhajan Lal principles for quashing an FIR, the Court held the material was not good enough to direct registration of an FIR or an investigation. It added a caution of general application: if investigation could be ordered on irrelevant or inadmissible entries falsely made by an unscrupulous person on random papers, the process of law could be abused against all and sundry, and no constitutional functionary could function independently. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under Section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein"
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2017-01-11 and is reported as [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC); (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC); (2017) 245 Taxman 214 (SC); (2018) 9 SCC 382. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section Evidence Act s.34, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. What the Court dismissed were two interlocutory applications, not the writ petition. The applications asked for a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored investigation into the material seized from the Birla and Sahara groups; the Court held that no case was made out to direct any investigation against the persons named in those documents, because entries in loose sheets and scraps of paper are irrelevant and inadmissible under s.34 of the Evidence Act, being neither books of account nor regularly kept in the course of business, and because entries even in properly kept books are not alone sufficient to charge a person with liability without independent evidence of the transaction. The Court expressly said it had not examined the main writ petition, which challenged the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (para 15); that challenge was left undecided by this order. It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Search, Survey & Block Assessment matters, on section Evidence Act s.34 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India — Arun Mishra J and Amitava Roy J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask the officer to identify the independent evidence of each transaction, and press that limb separately from admissibility. Establish whether the material was maintained in the regular course of business, which is the threshold the Birla and Sahara records failed.
Still good law. A separate search on later treatment found the judgment carried in tax digests at (2017) 394 ITR 220 / (2018) 9 SCC 382 with no overruling noted, and routinely relied on by tribunals rejecting additions built on loose papers and third-party diaries; it has attracted academic criticism (EPW, LiveLaw commentary) but no judicial reversal was found. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-25. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This is an order on interlocutory applications in a writ petition about the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, and it decides only that no investigation should be directed on the seized material; the writ petition itself was left undecided. The order says nothing about how s.34 of the Evidence Act interacts with the presumptions in s.132(4A) or s.292C, and those provisions are not mentioned in it. Do not attribute a view on that interaction to this decision. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
What the Court dismissed were two interlocutory applications, not the writ petition. The applications asked for a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored investigation into the material seized from the Birla and Sahara groups; the Court held that no case was made out to direct any investigation against the persons named in those documents, because entries in loose sheets and scraps of paper are irrelevant and inadmissible under s.34 of the Evidence Act, being neither books of account nor regularly kept in the course of business, and because entries even in properly kept books are not alone sufficient to charge a person with liability without independent evidence of the transaction. The Court expressly said it had not examined the main writ petition, which challenged the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (para 15); that challenge was left undecided by this order.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.