← All Phrases

“section 153A proceedings”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A225 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 153A proceedings is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 153A proceedings

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

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. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing section 153A proceedings

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1909/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

additions on the basis of statement recorded in a separate search action in the case of a third-person are not permissible in Section 153A proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the statement of third person cannot be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1908/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

additions on the basis of statement recorded in a separate search action in the case of a third-person are not permissible in Section 153A proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the statement of third person cannot be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1907/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

additions on the basis of statement recorded in a separate search action in the case of a third-person are not permissible in Section 153A proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the statement of third person cannot be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1906/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

additions on the basis of statement recorded in a separate search action in the case of a third-person are not permissible in Section 153A proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the statement of third person cannot be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

additions on the basis of statement recorded in a separate search action in the case of a third-person are not permissible in Section 153A proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the statement of third person cannot be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 551/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

additions on the basis of statement recorded in a separate search action in the case of a third-person are not permissible in Section 153A proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the statement of third person cannot be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 549/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

additions on the basis of statement recorded in a separate search action in the case of a third-person are not permissible in Section 153A proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the statement of third person cannot be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 548/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

additions on the basis of statement recorded in a separate search action in the case of a third-person are not permissible in Section 153A proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the statement of third person cannot be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining