← 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

Macro Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T.(Central) - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 2484/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. George Mathan & Sh. Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

unabated assessment. The additions highlighted in the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were made without reliance on any incriminating material, and thus the assessment order should not have been disturbed. 4. That the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding the assessment order

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Kumar Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 192/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2019-20 Acit-24(1), Ramesh Kumar Jain, 601, 6Th Floor, B-502, Oberoi Skyheight, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Cross Road Lokhandwala, Lalbaugh, Parel, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan : Adipj4196P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rushabh Mehta For Revenue : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-48, Mumbai [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 29-11-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Wherein The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue not on merits, but for the reason that there was no incriminating material which has been found during the course of search. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench ... Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Department not on merits, but on account of the fact that there was no 5 incriminating material found during the course of search. At the same time, it was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the order of the group company

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5423/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

grossly erred in confirming the disallowances made in the order u/s 153A in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Act since no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and seizure carried out us 132 of the Act. Ground 1(b) - That on the facts ... Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming additions made u/s 69A of alleged inflated capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material had been found referable to the assessment year under consideration, during the course of search & seizure carried out u/s 132 of the Act. Ground

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

grossly erred in confirming the disallowances made in the order u/s 153A in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Act since no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and seizure carried out us 132 of the Act. Ground 1(b) - That on the facts ... Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming additions made u/s 69A of alleged inflated capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material had been found referable to the assessment year under consideration, during the course of search & seizure carried out u/s 132 of the Act. Ground

DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Mahadhan Agritech Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

grossly erred in confirming the disallowances made in the order u/s 153A in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Act since no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and seizure carried out us 132 of the Act. Ground 1(b) - That on the facts ... Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming additions made u/s 69A of alleged inflated capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material had been found referable to the assessment year under consideration, during the course of search & seizure carried out u/s 132 of the Act. Ground

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)--50, Mumai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

grossly erred in confirming the disallowances made in the order u/s 153A in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Act since no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and seizure carried out us 132 of the Act. Ground 1(b) - That on the facts ... Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming additions made u/s 69A of alleged inflated capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material had been found referable to the assessment year under consideration, during the course of search & seizure carried out u/s 132 of the Act. Ground

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Knwon As Smartech Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai-50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2228/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

grossly erred in confirming the disallowances made in the order u/s 153A in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Act since no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and seizure carried out us 132 of the Act. Ground 1(b) - That on the facts ... Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming additions made u/s 69A of alleged inflated capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material had been found referable to the assessment year under consideration, during the course of search & seizure carried out u/s 132 of the Act. Ground

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartech Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai.50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

grossly erred in confirming the disallowances made in the order u/s 153A in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Act since no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and seizure carried out us 132 of the Act. Ground 1(b) - That on the facts ... Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming additions made u/s 69A of alleged inflated capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material had been found referable to the assessment year under consideration, during the course of search & seizure carried out u/s 132 of the Act. Ground

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 815/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

material found during the course of search and he could not have made additions/disallowance in the assessments u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material found / seized during the course of search. It was not permissible for the Ld. AO to make regular scrutiny assessments under the garb of assessment ... such selection has already lapsed. However these contentions of the appellant are not relevant as during the course of search and seizure action incriminating material was unearthed on the issue of Repairs & Maintenance expenses and on the issue of Toll & Trip Expenses. On the issue of repair and maintenance expenses

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 814/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

material found during the course of search and he could not have made additions/disallowance in the assessments u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material found / seized during the course of search. It was not permissible for the Ld. AO to make regular scrutiny assessments under the garb of assessment ... such selection has already lapsed. However these contentions of the appellant are not relevant as during the course of search and seizure action incriminating material was unearthed on the issue of Repairs & Maintenance expenses and on the issue of Toll & Trip Expenses. On the issue of repair and maintenance expenses

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 813/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

material found during the course of search and he could not have made additions/disallowance in the assessments u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material found / seized during the course of search. It was not permissible for the Ld. AO to make regular scrutiny assessments under the garb of assessment ... such selection has already lapsed. However these contentions of the appellant are not relevant as during the course of search and seizure action incriminating material was unearthed on the issue of Repairs & Maintenance expenses and on the issue of Toll & Trip Expenses. On the issue of repair and maintenance expenses

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

material found during the course of search and he could not have made additions/disallowance in the assessments u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material found / seized during the course of search. It was not permissible for the Ld. AO to make regular scrutiny assessments under the garb of assessment ... such selection has already lapsed. However these contentions of the appellant are not relevant as during the course of search and seizure action incriminating material was unearthed on the issue of Repairs & Maintenance expenses and on the issue of Toll & Trip Expenses. On the issue of repair and maintenance expenses

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 811/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

material found during the course of search and he could not have made additions/disallowance in the assessments u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material found / seized during the course of search. It was not permissible for the Ld. AO to make regular scrutiny assessments under the garb of assessment ... such selection has already lapsed. However these contentions of the appellant are not relevant as during the course of search and seizure action incriminating material was unearthed on the issue of Repairs & Maintenance expenses and on the issue of Toll & Trip Expenses. On the issue of repair and maintenance expenses

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 810/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

material found during the course of search and he could not have made additions/disallowance in the assessments u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material found / seized during the course of search. It was not permissible for the Ld. AO to make regular scrutiny assessments under the garb of assessment ... such selection has already lapsed. However these contentions of the appellant are not relevant as during the course of search and seizure action incriminating material was unearthed on the issue of Repairs & Maintenance expenses and on the issue of Toll & Trip Expenses. On the issue of repair and maintenance expenses

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 809/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

material found during the course of search and he could not have made additions/disallowance in the assessments u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material found / seized during the course of search. It was not permissible for the Ld. AO to make regular scrutiny assessments under the garb of assessment ... such selection has already lapsed. However these contentions of the appellant are not relevant as during the course of search and seizure action incriminating material was unearthed on the issue of Repairs & Maintenance expenses and on the issue of Toll & Trip Expenses. On the issue of repair and maintenance expenses

Paradigm Business Ventures, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1139/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1128/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1129/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1139/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Paradigm Business Ventures Dcit-Circle 1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco 45 Hollywood Plaza Cr Building Vip Road Zirakpur Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfp-5590-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit, Virtual) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT, Virtual) – Ld. DR & Dr
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271A

assessee. Further, FY 2016-17 was still in progress and barely 5 months had progressed for that year. To make up for the incriminating material, the assessee undertook to enhance its income disclosed in ITR for AY 2015-16 by an amount of Rs.4.375 Crores in aggregate which

Paradigm Business Ventures, Mohali vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1129/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1128/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1129/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1139/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Paradigm Business Ventures Dcit-Circle 1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco 45 Hollywood Plaza Cr Building Vip Road Zirakpur Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfp-5590-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit, Virtual) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT, Virtual) – Ld. DR & Dr
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271A

assessee. Further, FY 2016-17 was still in progress and barely 5 months had progressed for that year. To make up for the incriminating material, the assessee undertook to enhance its income disclosed in ITR for AY 2015-16 by an amount of Rs.4.375 Crores in aggregate which

Paradigm Business Ventures, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1128/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1128/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1129/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1139/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Paradigm Business Ventures Dcit-Circle 1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco 45 Hollywood Plaza Cr Building Vip Road Zirakpur Mohali. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfp-5590-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit, Virtual) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT, Virtual) – Ld. DR & Dr
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271A

assessee. Further, FY 2016-17 was still in progress and barely 5 months had progressed for that year. To make up for the incriminating material, the assessee undertook to enhance its income disclosed in ITR for AY 2015-16 by an amount of Rs.4.375 Crores in aggregate which

Shri Satish Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

passed an assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 31.03.2015. Since no incriminating material was found during the course of search, therefore, no addition was made by the AO except Rs.25,000/-. This estimated addition was made on account of certain ... Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that in a search assessment, additions are to be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the concluding paragraph is worth to note, which read

M/S Karia Builders, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 2401/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)Section 296S

without appreciating the fact that the Ld AO has proceeded to levy penalty merely relying upon the statement of third party whereas no incriminating material was brought on record by Ld AO during the assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings. Accordingly, the appellant prays before Your Honour that penalty levied