KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis for an addition. Furthermore, the assessment was invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) instead of the mandatory Section 153C when seized material from a third-party search was involved.
What were the facts?
During a search at a third party's premises, documents related to the assessee's alleged undisclosed income from money lending were found. The Assessing Officer made additions based on these documents, which the assessee claimed were not theirs and pertained to earlier years.
What were the issues?
Whether additions can be made solely on the basis of a 'dumb document' found during a search, and whether assessment proceedings were correctly initiated under Section 153C when material was seized from a third party.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 69,Section 132(4A),Section 292C,Section 153C,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.689 citing380 ITR 612 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Jasjit Singh235 citing161 Taxmann.com 306 · 2023 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary95 citing305 ITR 245 · 2008 · HC · Read judgment
- (Central)-1, New Delhi v. Ved Prakash Choudhary9 citing218 CTR 99 · 2008 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These 6 appeals, filed by the assessee against the separate order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereafter- learned CIT(A)) under the provision of section 259 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter- the Act), were heard together.
First, we take up ITA No. 882/Bang/2025 pertaining to AY 2010-11
ITA No.882 to 887/Bang/2025 2. The assessee in the memo of appeal raised multiple grounds numbered 1 to 7 and sub-grounds thereunder, which we, for the sake of brevity, are n
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026