Section 83 creates a mandatory evidentiary presumption for maps or plans purporting to have been made under the authority of the Central Government or a State Government. The Court must presume both that the map or plan was so made and that it is accurate. Maps or plans prepared for the purposes of a cause do not receive that presumption of accuracy and must be proved accurate.

Where a document purports to be admissible under the law in force in England or Ireland without proof of its seal, stamp, signature, or the signatory's judicial or official character, the court must presume those authenticating features to be genuine. It must also presume that the signatory held the claimed character when signing. The document is admissible for the same purpose for which it would be admissible in England or Ireland.

Presumption of genuineness applies to an electronic record purporting to be the Official Gazette and to an electronic record that law requires any person to keep. The Court must make that presumption where the record is maintained substantially in the legally required form and is produced from proper custody.

Section 81 requires courts to presume the genuineness of specified gazettes, newspapers, journals, and copies of private Acts of Parliament printed by the Queen's Printer. The presumption also applies to records required by law to be kept where they are maintained substantially in the prescribed form and produced from proper custody. It covers official publications and legally mandated records subject to the applicable form and custody conditions.

Section 80 requires a court to presume genuine a signed record or memorandum of evidence, statement, or confession produced before it. It also requires acceptance of the signatory's stated circumstances of taking and presumption that the evidence, statement, or confession was duly taken in accordance with law.

Section 79 creates a mandatory presumption of genuineness for certificates, certified copies, and other records made admissible by legislation to prove particular facts, where they purport to be duly certified by an authorised public officer. The presumption requires substantial compliance with the legally prescribed form and manner of execution. The Court must also presume that the apparent signatory or certifying person held the official character claimed at the relevant time.

Section 78 governs the proof of public documents through prescribed official records, certified copies, and authorised publications. Governmental acts, orders, notifications, legislative proceedings, and municipal proceedings may be proved through specified departmental records, journals, certified copies, or official publications. Foreign executive and legislative records may be proved through authorised or accepted journals, sealed copies, or statutory recognition. Other foreign public documents require the original or a certified copy, authenticated through notarial, consular, or diplomatic certification and supported by proof of their character under foreign law.

SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri B.R. Popat, AR For the Revenue : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR ORDER PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)") dated 24/01/2024, confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act... ... ...

Composite sampling of separately seized packets requires recorded verification that the packages match in size, weight, markings and colour-test results, with equal quantities drawn from each. Mixing packet contents without that verification may fail substantial compliance with sampling directions and make samples unreliable representatives of the seized bulk. Sampling defects are assessed for prejudice rather than treated as automatically fatal. Where delayed laboratory dispatch compounds uncertainty over liability for alleged contraband, and the applicant is unlikely to reoffend, reasonable grounds may satisfy statutory bail conditions despite restrictions applicable to commercial-quantity allegations.

Input tax credit on debit notes availed on or after 1 January 2021 is determined by the financial year of the debit note, not that of the underlying invoice. A physical invoice need not accompany goods moved under an e-invoice where the QR code containing the Invoice Reference Number is electronically produced for verification. Refund of accumulated unutilized ITC on exports is restricted only where export duty is actually payable; nil-rated, exempt, or non-scheduled goods are not treated as subjected to export duty.

Cash-deposit addition for unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE cannot be assessed in a dissolved partnership firm's hands when the relevant bank account is owned and operated by an individual proprietor. Where the proprietor acknowledges the account and reports its transactions in her income-tax return, assessment must be directed to the appropriate person, subject to law.

Proof of public documents may be made by producing certified copies that purport to reproduce the contents of the relevant public document or any part of it. Such certified copies serve as proof of the contents represented in them.

Certified copies of public documents must be supplied by a public officer having custody of a document that a person is entitled to inspect, on demand and payment of legally prescribed fees. Each copy must include a dated certificate confirming it is a true copy, signed by the responsible officer with the officer's official title and sealed where authorised. An officer ordinarily authorised to deliver such copies is deemed to have custody of the document.

Private documents are defined through a residual classification: every document that does not qualify as a public document falls within the category of private documents. Public-document status is the determining exclusion; absent that status, a document is treated as private under the evidentiary classification. The classification therefore creates a default category for non-public documents.

Section 74 classifies public documents as documents forming acts, or records of acts, of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers exercising legislative, judicial, or executive functions in India, the Commonwealth, or foreign countries. It also includes public records kept in any State of private documents.

Proof of a digital signature may be established by requiring production of the relevant Digital Signature Certificate from the purported signatory, the Controller, or the Certifying Authority. The Court may also direct another person to apply the public key listed in that certificate to verify whether the digital signature was affixed by the person it purports to identify.

Section 73 permits comparison of signatures, writings and seals to determine whether a disputed mark was made by the person it purports to identify. A signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the Court's satisfaction may be used as the comparison standard. The Court may require a person present to provide words or figures for comparison. The mechanism extends to finger-impressions.

Proof of an attested document not required by law to be attested is governed by the rules applicable to an unattested document. The fact that the document bears attestation does not itself attract the evidentiary mode prescribed for documents whose attestation is legally mandatory.

Proof of execution may be established by other evidence where an attesting witness denies the execution of the document or does not recollect it. Other evidence remains available to prove execution when the witness either disputes that the document was executed or cannot remember the execution, so the denial or lack of recollection does not prevent proof through evidentiary material independent of the witness's recollection.

Admission of execution by a party to an attested document is sufficient proof of its execution against that party. This applies even where the law requires the document to be attested, dispensing with further proof of execution against the party making the admission.