“incriminating material”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A8,981 judgments

The decision most relied on for incriminating material is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on incriminating material

CIT v. Kabul Chawla

380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court

3,235

citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.

149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court

2,379

citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia

395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court

1,226

citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

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.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.

397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court

786

citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.

380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court

689

citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.

387 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court

670

citing judgments

Assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during the search that substantiates the additions. This principle applies even to completed assessments where no additional income is disclosed.

Judgments citing incriminating material

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 619/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

properly 5. appreciate that the addition made in the impugned order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer is not based on any incriminating material and further failed to appreciate that for making additions under the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Act moreso when the proceedings ... properly 17. appreciate that the addition made in the impugned order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer is not based on any incriminating material and further failed to appreciate that for making additions under the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Actmoreso when the proceedings are unabated

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Piyush Arun Bongirwar, Mumbnai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection is allowed

ITA 1894/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai - SR. DR

Section 153CSection 250

Grounds taken in the cross objection: “CO Ground 1 - The Ld. CIT A has correctly allowed the Assessees appeal by observing that no incriminating material was found during the search that pertained to the Assessee, particularly in relation to the amount of loans and advances which formed the basis ... search that the Revenue claims to be related to the Assessee. Hence, the CIT Appeals observation that the assessment is not based on any incriminating material is justified. CO Ground 3 - The Ld. CIT Appeals has correctly rejected the stand of Revenue, which was based on assumptions and conjectures without

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Piyush Arun Bongirwar, Mumbai

In the result, revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's cross

ITA 1893/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai - SR. DR

Section 153CSection 250

Grounds taken in the cross objection: “CO Ground 1 - The Ld. CIT A has correctly allowed the Assessees appeal by observing that no incriminating material was found during the search that pertained to the Assessee, particularly in relation to the amount of loans and advances which formed the basis ... search that the Revenue claims to be related to the Assessee. Hence, the CIT Appeals observation that the assessment is not based on any incriminating material is justified. CO Ground 3 The Ld. CIT Appeals has correctly rejected the stand of Revenue, which was based on assumptions and conjectures without

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Piyush Arun Bongirwar, Mumbai

In the result, revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's cross

ITA 1892/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai - SR. DR

Section 153CSection 250

Grounds taken in the cross objection: “CO Ground 1 - The Ld. CIT A has correctly allowed the Assessees appeal by observing that no incriminating material was found during the search that pertained to the Assessee, particularly in relation to the amount of loans and advances which formed the basis ... search that the Revenue claims to be related to the Assessee. Hence, the CIT Appeals observation that the assessment is not based on any incriminating material is justified. CO Ground 3 The Ld. CIT Appeals has correctly rejected the stand of Revenue, which was based on assumptions and conjectures without

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Shri Balaji Metaltech Pvt Ltd, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and those of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2171/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

evidences were found relied in the assessment order. This indicates that the competent authority has not examined the assessment records or gone through the incriminating materials and merely endorsed the draft assessment orders as put across which is not the mandate of law for which reliance is rightly placed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Shri Balaji Metal Tech Pvt Ltd, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and those of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2170/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Shri Balaji Metal Tech Pvt Ltd, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and those of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2169/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Shri Balaji Metal Tech Pvt Ltd, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and those of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2168/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Shri Balaji Metal Tech Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and those of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1287/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Vikram Kumar Bajaj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1263/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 124Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

assessee that the learned AO has erred in making the addition in order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search. 11. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred

Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2765/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Shri Sanjay Jain, Dcit, Cc-01, I-42, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 Vs Pan-Aagpj1372G Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv. Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv. & Shri Dishant Seth, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025

Section 132Section 132(4)

also searched along with another director Shri Rajiv Jain, at their separate residences separate panchanamas were prepared and statements were recorded but no incriminating material cash or valuable was found in whole of the group companies as well as at residence while the search was undertaken for two days ... that PO was stated to be revoked at proceedings in office premises of Surya Vinayak Industries whose search was already concluded and no incriminating material was found. Ld. AR submitted that as per section 132(3) of the Act order of prohibition is issued where it is not practical

Nasa Agro Industries Private Limited, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 236/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud & Sh. P. K. Anand, CAs

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153cSection 250

I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 third party “ Hitesh Jain ” ( Prop of M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ), and in such cases where any incriminating materials were found with the searched person relating to a third party ( the assessee in this case ) then the proceedings should have been initiated ... which this reassessment proceedings has been initiated. 11. We are of the opinion that statement recorded during search alone do not qualify as “incriminating material” in isolation and has to be linked to any tangible evidence, books and documents u/s 132(1)( c ) which has to have been discovered during

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Saffron Green International Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 958/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(2)

were recovered from their premises whereas in the case of the assessee, neither any search or survey action had been carried out nor any incriminating material had been found. 7.3 Regarding the contention raised by the Ld. CIT-DR regarding the violation of principles of natural justice

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 860/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Miss Twinkle Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154

judgment reads as under :- "23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. From the information received ... lacks merit and shall defeat the concept of single assessment order for each of relevant preceding years for assessing 'total income' in case of incriminating material found during search or requisition. 30. The argument that by enactment of Section 153A to 153D has not eclipsed Section 148 does not enhance

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar vs. Rajendra Kumar Mundra, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 454/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

Court’s order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 and several other linked petitions wherein wrongly held that once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to without ... Rajendra Kumar Mundra, Alwar. "23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. From the information received

Plastene India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 409/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms Astha Maniar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 35

proceedings for the present year had not abated within the meaning of Section 153A of the Act and further, in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of the search, any of the additions could not be made in the captioned year

Late Shri Mahabir Prasad(Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 412/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

made any addition based on the statement made by the assessee but the learned CIT – A has deleted the addition in absence of any incriminating material available for that year. He submitted that when the assessee has categorically stated in his statement under section ... order of the learned CIT – A. He submitted that for assessment year 2017 – 18 in absence of any incriminating material found during the search, the addition could not have been made in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of The Principal Commissioner of Income