← All Phrases

“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

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2082/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2081/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 153A

appellant are not admissible and therefore dismissed. 7.11 The contentions of the appellant with regard to the claim that there was no incriminating material found at the time of search for the relevant assessment years has been considered. It is the appellant's case that the entire addition is based ... alleged cash collections. This annexure was prepared by Mr. Ranganath himself and hence, it has been contended that the same would not constitute incriminating material found or seized at the time of search. In the remand report, the A.O. has stressed upon the statement recorded u/s.132

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Late Shri Mahabir Prasad (Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru

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

ITA 170/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Baengaluru vs. Late Shri Mahabir Prasad(Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru

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

ITA 169/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Zta Infratech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4497/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

Investigation Wing, Meerut in the case of Sanjeev Mittal Group of cases on 29.12.2017 and 06.02.2018. During the search and seizure action, incriminating materials were found and seized which inter-alia include one Annexure No. LP-19 which contained various papers related to purchase/sale of immovable property in cash. From ... provided to the assessee. 6. An Appraisal Report is a report prepared by the search conducting Assistant/Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) highlighting the incriminating material along with the outcome of the investigations from the day of commencement of search operations to the culmination of the Appraisal Report. A copy

Zta Infratech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4496/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

Investigation Wing, Meerut in the case of Sanjeev Mittal Group of cases on 29.12.2017 and 06.02.2018. During the search and seizure action, incriminating materials were found and seized which inter-alia include one Annexure No. LP-19 which contained various papers related to purchase/sale of immovable property in cash. From ... provided to the assessee. 6. An Appraisal Report is a report prepared by the search conducting Assistant/Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) highlighting the incriminating material along with the outcome of the investigations from the day of commencement of search operations to the culmination of the Appraisal Report. A copy

Surendra Kumar Arya, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 2339/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

Delhi and raised specific ground objecting to completing the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act without there being any incriminating material found in the hands of the assessee and completed the assessment without assuming the jurisdiction as per law. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee ... case of the assessee on 05.10.2017 and submitted that it is fact on record that the assessment year under consideration is unabated and no incriminating material was found at the premises of the assessee. However, the AO has assumed the jurisdiction u/s 153A heavily relying on the material found

Surendra Kumar Arya, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 2338/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

Delhi and raised specific ground objecting to completing the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act without there being any incriminating material found in the hands of the assessee and completed the assessment without assuming the jurisdiction as per law. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee ... case of the assessee on 05.10.2017 and submitted that it is fact on record that the assessment year under consideration is unabated and no incriminating material was found at the premises of the assessee. However, the AO has assumed the jurisdiction u/s 153A heavily relying on the material found

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2223/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133DSection 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 37Section 68

impugned assessment order is beyond jurisdiction and illegal, also for the reason that such order could not have been made since no incriminating material has been found as a result of search. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... same does not show as to how these documents belong to the assessee. The same does not show as to how these documents are incriminating material and the same does not have any seized material for the year under consideration. Further he submitted that there is no incriminating material found

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2222/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133DSection 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 37Section 68

impugned assessment order is beyond jurisdiction and illegal, also for the reason that such order could not have been made since no incriminating material has been found as a result of search. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... same does not show as to how these documents belong to the assessee. The same does not show as to how these documents are incriminating material and the same does not have any seized material for the year under consideration. Further he submitted that there is no incriminating material found

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2221/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133DSection 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 37Section 68

impugned assessment order is beyond jurisdiction and illegal, also for the reason that such order could not have been made since no incriminating material has been found as a result of search. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... same does not show as to how these documents belong to the assessee. The same does not show as to how these documents are incriminating material and the same does not have any seized material for the year under consideration. Further he submitted that there is no incriminating material found

Bhargavi Keswani, Indore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- II, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 727/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

that the additions made by AO in AYs 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 (these three years are unabated/completed assessment-years) without having any incriminating material are not valid. He submitted that the assessment- order clearly shows that the AO has taken into account three sets of material for making ... employees of AHPL & ACPL. He has nowhere stated that the cash was shared with assessee. Therefore, the material (i) and (ii) do not constitute “incriminating material” for the present assessments framed against assessee U/s 153A. Further, the material (iii), although found during Page 6 of 37 Bhargavi Keswani ITA Nos.727/Ind/2024

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Indore vs. Java Builders Pvt Ltd(Formerly Java Foods Pvt Ltd), Indore

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 279/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Java Builders Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax (Central)-2 (Formerly Java Foods Pvt. Ltd.), 16, Khajarana Square, बनाम/ Ghanshyam Castle, Vs. Opposite Subh Labh, Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aaccj5636L Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69B

carried out on 19.09.2016. During the course of survey the appellant has surrendered income of Rs. 4,15,05,000/- on account of various incriminating material in the form of diary of loans and advances given to different parties. The surrendered income was duly recorded in books of account ... were initiated in the case of appellant on 25.03.2017 and were concluded on 01.05.2017. During the course of search no incriminating material was found and seized which represented any unaccounted/undisclosed income. The appellant, for the year under consideration, filed return of income on 1.01.2018 declaring total income

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Nawal Singh Ratnawat, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1540/JPR/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumaracit, Central Circle-02, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. S. R. Sharma, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

pertain to an unabated assessment, hence, any transaction which is fully recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee and there being no incriminating material found during the search, no addition can be made u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. We agree with the view

Mft Builders and Developers, Gulbarga Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1178/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153B

made to the valuation officer about the ware house building constructed during the period 2014-15 and 2015-16 on the ground that no incriminating materials were found. The assessee’s case is that the AO in order to get an additional time for making the assessment had referred

Mohammed Abdul Najeeb, Gulbarga, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary, Karnataka

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1176/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153B

made to the valuation officer about the ware house building constructed during the period 2014-15 and 2015-16 on the ground that no incriminating materials were found. The assessee’s case is that the AO in order to get an additional time for making the assessment had referred

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ronak Gold, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3724/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit-19(3) Ronak Gold Room No. 513 148 Shop No. 14 Piramal Chambers Vs. Mumbadevi Road Parel, Mumbai-400 012. Kalbadevi Ho Mumbai-400 002. Pan :Aakfr7444K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umashankar PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited appeal, the following issue is to be adjudicated :- “In the absence of incriminating material and also in the absence of corroborative evidence, whether addition can be made under section 40A(3) and notional rental income in a search assessment completed under section ... substance is mentioned in the above question. 3. From the assessment order/Ld. CIT(A) order, it is observed that there is no incriminating material except the sworn statement recorded in police station which was retracted later. The Ld. AO relied on the statement of one of the partner

Aranya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30, Delhi

ITA 3205/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3204/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3205/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 M/S Aranya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income 102, Nirmal Tower, Bara Khamba Tax (Appeal)-30, Ara Road, New Delhi-110001 Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakca6000B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 3204 & 3205/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21, Arise Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1074347079(1) & 1074347258(1) Dated 11.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 153C(1)(a)

identical additions in question on merits in it’s hands. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that we sought to know the alleged incriminating material found/seized during the course of search in question dated 23.07.2019 in M/s Kuldeep Bishnoi Group of cases. Mr. Sidhu invites our attention ... assessee’s favour and against the department that any addition in such an unabated assessment ought to be made based on the specific incriminating material only. We further wish to clarify here keeping in mind the fact that the impugned section 153C proceedings had been initiated against the assessee

Aranya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30, Delhi

ITA 3204/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3204/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3205/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 M/S Aranya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income 102, Nirmal Tower, Bara Khamba Tax (Appeal)-30, Ara Road, New Delhi-110001 Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakca6000B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 3204 & 3205/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21, Arise Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1074347079(1) & 1074347258(1) Dated 11.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 153C(1)(a)

identical additions in question on merits in it’s hands. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that we sought to know the alleged incriminating material found/seized during the course of search in question dated 23.07.2019 in M/s Kuldeep Bishnoi Group of cases. Mr. Sidhu invites our attention ... assessee’s favour and against the department that any addition in such an unabated assessment ought to be made based on the specific incriminating material only. We further wish to clarify here keeping in mind the fact that the impugned section 153C proceedings had been initiated against the assessee

Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 3, Delhi

ITA 7/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

completed much before the date of search i.e. 28.11.2018 and therefore, the said assessment is completed assessment. Since no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the addition made was liable to be deleted. Relevant paragraps of the appellate order of AY 2013-14 is reproduced as under ... Therefore, the assessment year under appeal is a completed assessment. From the examination of the assessment order it is apparent that no incriminating material was found during the course of search action qua the aforesaid disallowance. The appellant has placed reliance on the ratio of the decision