← All Phrases

“search and seizure”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 13210,164 judgments

The decision most relied on for search and seizure is CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645), cited in 1,823 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on search and seizure

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT
137 ITD 287 · 2012 · ITAT
907
citing judgments

In non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer can make additions under section 153A based on books of accounts or documents found during a search but not produced during the original assessment, provided such material is incriminating.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia
352 ITR 493 · 2013 · High Court
537
citing judgments

Section 153A can be invoked to reassess income for all years under consideration prior to a search, even if returns for those years were processed under Section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer has the power to reassess total income in such cases without fetters.

E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT
75 Taxmann.com 215 · 2016 · High Court
428
citing judgments

In search assessments conducted under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, additions to the assessee's income can be made even in the absence of incriminating material found during a search operation conducted under Section 132.

DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma
159 Taxmann.com 179 · 2024 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper containing jottings, not shown to be part of regularly maintained books of accounts, do not constitute incriminating material for initiating assessment under section 153C. The satisfaction note required for 153C proceedings must specify the assessment year to which the alleged incriminating material belongs.

Kishore Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income
52 Taxmann.com 449 · 2014 · High Court
255
citing judgments

An unretracted admission of undisclosed income made by an assessee in a sworn statement under Section 132(4) during a search and seizure operation forms a valid basis for making additions and levying tax, especially when no books of accounts are maintained.

Judgments citing search and seizure

Harshit Kochar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 17 New Delhi, Jhandewalan New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5072/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarharshit Kochar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 17, 5, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Amypk0228N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Order : 29 .08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 06.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Have Erred In Nor Appreciating Either On The Fact Or Circumstance, Of The Case & Further Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.21,26,142/- U/S 69A R.W.S, 115Bbe Of The Act Which Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 69A

time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee only pressed Ground No.1. 3. Brief facts relating to Ground No.1 are, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was conducted by the Investigation Wing on 22.10.2016 in the case of assessee

G.S.Express Pvt.Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-2, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

ITA 633/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for delay in Audit and obtaining Report u/s 44AB of IT Act as due to search and seizure on 01.02.2018 the entire records were seized by Investigation Wing. 3-That the Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not appreciate that books of accounts ... time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by him.” 2. The facts of the case are, that a Search and Seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on the business and residential premises of the G.S. Group