← All Phrases

“documents seized”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 1322,593 judgments

The decision most relied on for documents seized is SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (346 ITR 177), cited in 308 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on documents seized

SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
346 ITR 177 · 2012 · High Court
308
citing judgments

The date of initiation of search or requisition for the purpose of abatement of assessment proceedings is the date of search or requisition, or the date of receipt of seized documents by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whichever is later. Proceedings under section 153C can only be initiated by the Assessing Officer of the searched person after being satisfied that seized documents belong to another person.

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)
294 ITR 49 · 2007 · Supreme Court
299
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
394 ITR 569 · 2017 · High Court
282
citing judgments

For initiating proceedings under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and specifically relate to the assessment years for which assessments are reopened. A document relevant only for one year cannot be used to reopen other assessment years without being incriminating for those years.

Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
370 ITR 295 · 2015 · High Court
249
citing judgments

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act is invoked only when it is established that seized documents do not belong to the searched person, or if the searched person disclaims them; the satisfaction note must specifically indicate this fact.

Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT
289 ITR 341 · 2007 · Supreme Court
237
citing judgments

A block assessment proceeding under section 158BD is illegal if the procedure laid down in section 153C is not followed. The provisions of section 153C are similar to section 158BD in block assessment proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd.
86 Taxmann.com 84 · 2017 · High Court
184
citing judgments

For a valid reassessment under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and directly relevant to the assessment years being reopened. Documents that are not incriminating or do not relate to the assessment years do not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.

CIT v. Girish Chaudhary
296 ITR 619 · 2008 · High Court
175
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

CIT v. Sant Lal
118 Taxmann.com 432 · 2020 · High Court
154
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of entries in a diary seized from a third party if the diary is not found in the assessee's premises, not in the assessee's handwriting, and the revenue fails to provide corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the diary.

Judgments citing documents seized

Smita Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4441/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Amit Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaepj 8462 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) & Smt. Smita Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8102 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shash Bekal Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S, Arising Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. While Ita No. 4440/Mum/2025 Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, Ita No.4441/Mum/2025 Relates To A.Y. 2017-18. (Ays. 2014-15 & 2017-18) Shri Amit Jatia & Smt. Smita Jatia 2. Since, Appellants Are Closely Related, Being Husband & Wife & Issues Arising For Consideration Are More Or Less Identical, They Have Been Clubbed Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

given as to why that material was insufficient to link the Assessee with "MP Gupta? whose name finds mention in the diary and the documents seized from the premises of Mr. Brij Mohan Gupta. 14. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to permit the Revenue, for the first time, before

Amit Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4440/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Amit Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaepj 8462 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) & Smt. Smita Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8102 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shash Bekal Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S, Arising Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. While Ita No. 4440/Mum/2025 Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, Ita No.4441/Mum/2025 Relates To A.Y. 2017-18. (Ays. 2014-15 & 2017-18) Shri Amit Jatia & Smt. Smita Jatia 2. Since, Appellants Are Closely Related, Being Husband & Wife & Issues Arising For Consideration Are More Or Less Identical, They Have Been Clubbed Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

given as to why that material was insufficient to link the Assessee with "MP Gupta? whose name finds mention in the diary and the documents seized from the premises of Mr. Brij Mohan Gupta. 14. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to permit the Revenue, for the first time, before