← 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

Vijetha Donthiri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1355/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1355/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Vijetha Donthiri, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Pan:Alqpd4873P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/ 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 20/08/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vijetha Donthiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 29.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

submitted that the issuance of notice under section 153C of the Act is without ITA No.1355/Hyd/2024 5 jurisdiction as there is no incriminating material found during the course of search which belongs to the assessee or pertains to the sale transaction in question. It was contended that the seized material ... Delhi), the Ld. AR also submitted that the statement of the assessee’s husband cannot be treated as incriminating material without any corroborative evidence. 6. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that as per the settled legal position, for valid assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

I.T.A. No.617/Chny/25 7. The ld. AR Shri K. Mohan Das, C.A. drew our attention to the ground-wise synopsis and submits that no incriminating material or document was found or seized from the possession or control of the assessee during the course of the search and the loose sheets relied

Agroha Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8305/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.8305/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2011-12) Agroha Fincap Ltd., C-51, Mahendru Enclave, G.T. Karnal Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110033 Pan: Aaaca-8075-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent R.No. 398B, Cr Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 20.08.2019, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Suraj Gupta, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That He Is Not Pressing Legal Ground Raised In Ground No. 2 Of Appeal. Thus, The Primary Issue For Adjudication In Appeal By The Assessee Is Addition Of Rs.25,00,000/- U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On Account Of Share Capital/Share Premium Received From M/S. Blue Bell Finance Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, SR.DR
Section 148Section 68Section 69C

referred to the confirmation filed by the M/s. Blue Bell Finance Ltd. at page no 14 of the paper book. In so far as incriminating material referred to at page no. 52 and 53 of the paper book, he submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn from the said ... incriminating material as it nowhere mentions that these transactions are bogus. 2.2. In respect of ground no. 4 of appeal relating to addition of Rs.45,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, the ld. Counsel submits that the said addition is consequential. The AO has assumed without there

Sh.Nirmal Singh S/O Sh Banta Singh, H.No 5623, Sector-38(West), Chandigarh vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

ITA 148/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.144/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.145/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Nirmal Singh Dcit-Central Circle-2 S/O Shri Banta Singh Cr Building, Himalaya Marg बनाम/ Vs. H. No 5623 Sector 38 (West) Sector 17-E, Chandigarh -160036 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aerps-8844-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

Social Welfare Society (GJESWS). 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and relied on various judicial decisions to contend that in the absence of any incriminating material as found during the course of search action, impugned addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR stated

Sh. Nirmal Singh S/O Sh. Banta Singh H.No.5623, Sector-38(West), Chandigarh vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

ITA 147/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.144/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.145/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Nirmal Singh Dcit-Central Circle-2 S/O Shri Banta Singh Cr Building, Himalaya Marg बनाम/ Vs. H. No 5623 Sector 38 (West) Sector 17-E, Chandigarh -160036 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aerps-8844-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

Social Welfare Society (GJESWS). 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and relied on various judicial decisions to contend that in the absence of any incriminating material as found during the course of search action, impugned addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR stated

Sh.Nirmal Singh S/O Sh. Banta Singh, H.No.5623, Sector-38(West), Chandigarh vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

ITA 145/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.144/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.145/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Nirmal Singh Dcit-Central Circle-2 S/O Shri Banta Singh Cr Building, Himalaya Marg बनाम/ Vs. H. No 5623 Sector 38 (West) Sector 17-E, Chandigarh -160036 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aerps-8844-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

Social Welfare Society (GJESWS). 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and relied on various judicial decisions to contend that in the absence of any incriminating material as found during the course of search action, impugned addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR stated

Sh. Nirmal Singh S/O. Sh Banta Singh H.No 5623, Sector-38(West), Chandigarh vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

ITA 144/CHANDI/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.144/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.145/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4.आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Nirmal Singh Dcit-Central Circle-2 S/O Shri Banta Singh Cr Building, Himalaya Marg बनाम/ Vs. H. No 5623 Sector 38 (West) Sector 17-E, Chandigarh -160036 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aerps-8844-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

Social Welfare Society (GJESWS). 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and relied on various judicial decisions to contend that in the absence of any incriminating material as found during the course of search action, impugned addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR stated