← 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

Gomathy Jalaja, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 780/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

failed to adjudicate the ground relating to the validity of the assessment made u/s. 153C in the absence of any incriminating material. It is further submitted that since the appellant had offered a plausible explanation for source of cash deposit no addition is required to be made, therefore, the matter

Gomathy Jalaja, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thituvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 779/COCH/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

failed to adjudicate the ground relating to the validity of the assessment made u/s. 153C in the absence of any incriminating material. It is further submitted that since the appellant had offered a plausible explanation for source of cash deposit no addition is required to be made, therefore, the matter

Gomathy Jalaja, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 778/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa M.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153C

failed to adjudicate the ground relating to the validity of the assessment made u/s. 153C in the absence of any incriminating material. It is further submitted that since the appellant had offered a plausible explanation for source of cash deposit no addition is required to be made, therefore, the matter

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

seizure operations were carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 10.06.2015. During the course of search and seizure operations, certain incriminating material was stated to have been found and seized. Accordingly, the ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notices ... insofar as the completed assessments are concerned, they do not abate, and the pending assessments, abate. Thus, the completed assessments become final unless some incriminating material is found during the course of the search. If we go by the provisions contained in section 153A, the intention of the legislature

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

seizure operations were carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 10.06.2015. During the course of search and seizure operations, certain incriminating material was stated to have been found and seized. Accordingly, the ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notices ... insofar as the completed assessments are concerned, they do not abate, and the pending assessments, abate. Thus, the completed assessments become final unless some incriminating material is found during the course of the search. If we go by the provisions contained in section 153A, the intention of the legislature

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

seizure operations were carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 10.06.2015. During the course of search and seizure operations, certain incriminating material was stated to have been found and seized. Accordingly, the ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notices ... insofar as the completed assessments are concerned, they do not abate, and the pending assessments, abate. Thus, the completed assessments become final unless some incriminating material is found during the course of the search. If we go by the provisions contained in section 153A, the intention of the legislature

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

seizure operations were carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 10.06.2015. During the course of search and seizure operations, certain incriminating material was stated to have been found and seized. Accordingly, the ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notices ... insofar as the completed assessments are concerned, they do not abate, and the pending assessments, abate. Thus, the completed assessments become final unless some incriminating material is found during the course of the search. If we go by the provisions contained in section 153A, the intention of the legislature

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

seizure operations were carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 10.06.2015. During the course of search and seizure operations, certain incriminating material was stated to have been found and seized. Accordingly, the ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notices ... insofar as the completed assessments are concerned, they do not abate, and the pending assessments, abate. Thus, the completed assessments become final unless some incriminating material is found during the course of the search. If we go by the provisions contained in section 153A, the intention of the legislature

ACIT, Trichur vs. M/S. Atlas Jewellery India Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shivakumar S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) conducted in the business premises of the appellant on 09.02,2015 and it is stated that certain incriminating materials were seized during the course of search and seizure operations. Accordingly, notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the appellant

ACIT, Trichur vs. M/S. Atlas Jewellery India Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shivakumar S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) conducted in the business premises of the appellant on 09.02,2015 and it is stated that certain incriminating materials were seized during the course of search and seizure operations. Accordingly, notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the appellant

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

also affirmed by the Tribunal. Then putting new theory for set off losses against general reserves under MAT in regard to which no incriminating material has been found by department during search and seizure is invalid. Hence, the same needs to be deleted. As regards the second argument relating ... erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s 153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A of the Act. 2. On the facts

Vensa Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.819/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Vensa Infrastructure Vs. Acit Limited Central Circle-2(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaecc7856K]

For Appellant: Shri Maheshwar Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Ms.U Mini Chandran,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153C

search and seizure operation. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that during the course of search and seizure operation, certain incriminating material was found and seized, which clearly shows that the assessee has relation to the business activities of M/s Prathima Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Subsequently, notice u/s 153C ... contractors to prove the genuineness of payment. The AO without considering relevant details, simply on the basis of appraisal report claims that there is incriminating material for making addition, even though there is no reference of any 5 Vensa Infrastructure Ltd. incriminating material in the assessment order. The Ld.CIT

Venkatesh Gangakhedkar, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 904/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

searched person i.e., DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Hyderabad recorded satisfaction under section 153C of the Act on 19.12.2018 in light of relevant incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar and observed that, page-19 of the above loose sheet contains ... case of DCIT vs., M/s. U.K. Paints (Overseas Ltd.) in Civil Appeal No.6634 of 2021, wherein it was held that, “as no incriminating material found in the case of any of the assessee either from the assessee or from the third party and the assessments were made under section

Venkatesh Gangakhedkar, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle- 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 903/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

searched person i.e., DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Hyderabad recorded satisfaction under section 153C of the Act on 19.12.2018 in light of relevant incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar and observed that, page-19 of the above loose sheet contains ... case of DCIT vs., M/s. U.K. Paints (Overseas Ltd.) in Civil Appeal No.6634 of 2021, wherein it was held that, “as no incriminating material found in the case of any of the assessee either from the assessee or from the third party and the assessments were made under section

Venkatesh Gangakhedkar, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 902/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

searched person i.e., DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Hyderabad recorded satisfaction under section 153C of the Act on 19.12.2018 in light of relevant incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar and observed that, page-19 of the above loose sheet contains ... case of DCIT vs., M/s. U.K. Paints (Overseas Ltd.) in Civil Appeal No.6634 of 2021, wherein it was held that, “as no incriminating material found in the case of any of the assessee either from the assessee or from the third party and the assessments were made under section

Venkatesh Gangakhedkar, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 901/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

searched person i.e., DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Hyderabad recorded satisfaction under section 153C of the Act on 19.12.2018 in light of relevant incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar and observed that, page-19 of the above loose sheet contains ... case of DCIT vs., M/s. U.K. Paints (Overseas Ltd.) in Civil Appeal No.6634 of 2021, wherein it was held that, “as no incriminating material found in the case of any of the assessee either from the assessee or from the third party and the assessments were made under section

Jaideep Halwasiya, Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central), Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 986/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.986/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaideep Halwasiya…...………..……..…………………....Appellant 3Rd Floor, P-34, India Exhange Place, Kol-1. [Pan: Aawph1706L] Vs. Pcit (Central), Kol-2….…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsian, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Revisionary Order Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 13.03.2025, For A.Y.2018-19, Revising The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 153C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 30.03.2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Instant Case Originally Completed Under Section 153C R.W.S. 143(3) On 30.03.2023, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee After Certain Additions. Subsequently, The Ld. Pcit Invoked His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 & Passed An Order Dated 13.03.2025, Directing The Assessing Officer To Conduct Necessary Verification & Make A Fresh Assessment On Certain Issues, After Providing Due Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee. During The Course Of Revision Proceedings, The

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

quashed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 30.08.2024, holding that the proceedings under Section 153C were bad in law, as there was no incriminating material found during search satisfying the jurisdictional requirement under Section 153C. This fact was communicated to the PCIT through letter dated 03.12.2024, well before ... order dated I.T.A. No.986/Kol/2025 Jaideep Halwasiya 30.08.2024, on the ground that the jurisdictional requirements under Section 153C were not fulfilled, i.e., there was no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee. This fact was communicated to the Ld. PCIT, yet was not considered in the impugned 263 order. It is settled

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

justified in deleting the addition with respect to Rs. 1,53,47,560/-, as the same was without any incriminating material and was based only on statement recorded under Section 133A which by itself does not have evidentiary value. 3. The CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition with ... that effect during the survey. It is now a well-settled law that such admission made by an assessee in the statement without any incriminating material cannot form the basis for an addition. Therefore, the addition of Rs.1,53,47,650/- is deleted

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 1, Bengaluru vs. Global Tech Park Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 2363/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

business and (ii) the assessment for the year under appeal is unabated and therefore no disallowance could have been made in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The brief facts of the case show that for AY 2012-13 assessee filed its return of income ... 2363/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 48 therefore if any addition is required to be made it could only have been made on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. His submissions is that the Id. AO has made the disallowance only on the basis of the statement

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

business and (ii) the assessment for the year under appeal is unabated and therefore no disallowance could have been made in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. The brief facts of the case show that for AY 2012-13 assessee filed its return ... 2363/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 48 therefore if any addition is required to be made it could only have been made on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. His submissions is that the ld. AO has made the disallowance only on the basis of the statement