← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Suresh Jewellers, Shakuntla Palace

ITA 246/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं No.244/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Sachchu Prasad, Kasap, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8058 Q & आयकर अपील सं No.245/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Prasad, Udwant Nagar, Kasap Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8056 A & आयकर अपील सं No.246/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Jewellers, Shakuntla Palace, Bakarganj, Patna, Bihar-800004 Pan No. :Adhfs 5624 G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shrirajat Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of The Id.Cit(A), Patna-3,All Dated 31.05.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriRajat Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153A

against the deletion of addition by the ld.CIT(A) of Rs.93,42,000/-, which was added by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the search proceedings. 3. Facts in brief are that a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises ... against the deletion of addition of Rs.93,42,500/- by the ld.CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the course of search proceedings. 7. This issue has already been decided by us while deciding the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.244/PAT/2023

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Suresh Prasad, Bhojpur

ITA 245/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं No.244/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Sachchu Prasad, Kasap, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8058 Q & आयकर अपील सं No.245/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Prasad, Udwant Nagar, Kasap Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8056 A & आयकर अपील सं No.246/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Jewellers, Shakuntla Palace, Bakarganj, Patna, Bihar-800004 Pan No. :Adhfs 5624 G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shrirajat Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of The Id.Cit(A), Patna-3,All Dated 31.05.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriRajat Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153A

against the deletion of addition by the ld.CIT(A) of Rs.93,42,000/-, which was added by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the search proceedings. 3. Facts in brief are that a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises ... against the deletion of addition of Rs.93,42,500/- by the ld.CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the course of search proceedings. 7. This issue has already been decided by us while deciding the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.244/PAT/2023

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Sachchu Prasad, Bhojpur

ITA 244/PAT/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं No.244/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Sachchu Prasad, Kasap, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8058 Q & आयकर अपील सं No.245/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Prasad, Udwant Nagar, Kasap Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8056 A & आयकर अपील सं No.246/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Jewellers, Shakuntla Palace, Bakarganj, Patna, Bihar-800004 Pan No. :Adhfs 5624 G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shrirajat Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of The Id.Cit(A), Patna-3,All Dated 31.05.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriRajat Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153A

against the deletion of addition by the ld.CIT(A) of Rs.93,42,000/-, which was added by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the search proceedings. 3. Facts in brief are that a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises ... against the deletion of addition of Rs.93,42,500/- by the ld.CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the course of search proceedings. 7. This issue has already been decided by us while deciding the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.244/PAT/2023

DCIT, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Hemraj Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 58/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.58/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Dcit, Cc-4(4), Kolkata Vs Hemraj Industries Private Ltd., 46B, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, (1St Floor), Kolkata-700016 Pan No. :Aaach 8249 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं/Cross Objection No.35/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Dcit, Cc-4(4), Kolkata Hemraj Industries Private Ltd., Vs 46B, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, (1St Floor), Kolkata-700016 Pan No. :Aaach 8249 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dipu Koley, Adl.Cit-Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana & Sunil Surana, Ars सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-27, For The Assessment Year 2021-2022 & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objecting Arising Out Of The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. 2. The Only Issue Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Is Against The Deletion Of Addition To The Tune Of Rs.88,69,577/- By The Ld.Cit(A) Thereby Partly Sustaining The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.12,67,083/- As Against The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.1,01,36,660/- As Unaccounted Sale Of The Assessee Outside The Books Of Accounts

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana & Sunil Surana, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Dipu Koley, Adl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 132Section 69A

assessee filed its return of income on 28.02.2022 declaring total income at Rs.11,44,22,390/-.The Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the search namely GDA4, GDA5 & GDA6 observed that the assessee has made certain transactions out of the books of accounts which aggregated to Rs.1

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2911/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

records. This is impermissible in law in respect of unabated years. Further, we find that the AO has not referred any of the incriminating documents seized during the search proceedings in respect of the additions made. It further supports that the additions are made by the AO only

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2853/CHNY/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

records. This is impermissible in law in respect of unabated years. Further, we find that the AO has not referred any of the incriminating documents seized during the search proceedings in respect of the additions made. It further supports that the additions are made by the AO only

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2851/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

records. This is impermissible in law in respect of unabated years. Further, we find that the AO has not referred any of the incriminating documents seized during the search proceedings in respect of the additions made. It further supports that the additions are made by the AO only

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2850/CHNY/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

records. This is impermissible in law in respect of unabated years. Further, we find that the AO has not referred any of the incriminating documents seized during the search proceedings in respect of the additions made. It further supports that the additions are made by the AO only