← 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(3), Pune vs. Subhash Jivraj Jain, Pune

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

ITA 1690/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153C

assessee and the cash transactions he had entered into and the assessee failed to submit any submission or denial in respect of the incriminating material relevant to his case inspite of sufficient opportunities granted to him. 9 CO No.29/PUN/2025 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... foundation for initiation of action which would enable to evaluate whether an opinion has been validly formed and as long as it rests on incriminating material, which pertains to assessment years in question, same would qualify requirement of section 153C. 16. As regards the issue of reliance on the decision

Income Tax Officer 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Micro Plantae Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

disallowance, therefore, penalty should be levied on such adhoc disallowance and that to be made in the order passed u/s.153C when admittedly no incriminating material qua this disallowance found during the course of search. A search action u/s.132 was carried out in the case of Temptation Foods Group on 24/09/2009 ... even find that the assessment being a search assessment the A.O. had jurisdiction to making addition only on the basis of any incriminating material found as a result of search even the assessment order do not reflect any incriminating mater based on which disallowance was made

Infinity Cars Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT03 Central Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2369/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah,ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 153ASection 153CSection 263

Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (64 Taxmann.com 34), Kabul Chawla etc. no addition could be made in respect of assessments which have became final if no incriminating material is found during search or during 153A proceedings. The assessee also contented that where there was nothing on record to suggest that any material ... ld.PCIT observed that notice u/s 153C was issued after receipt of information along with satisfaction from the A.O. that there was an incriminating material pertaining to the information of the assessee, after following due procedure as laid down by law. The assessment proceedings were concluded by an order dated

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Ramesh Pannalal Ranawat, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the department and cross objection by the assessee are

ITA 5688/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dy. Cit-17(1) Late Ramesh Pannalal Ranawat Room No. 232, 2Nd Floor, Through Rahul Ramesh Ranawat G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan, (Legal Heir Of Late Ramesh Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Pannalal Ranawat) 1St Floor, Rangwala Building, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 13/15, Dhanji Street, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Adtpr 8070 M (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Co No. 291/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5688/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Late Ramesh Pannalal Ranawat Dy. Cit-17(1) Room No. 232, 2Nd Floor, Through Rahul Ramesh Ranawat (Legal Heir Of Late Ramesh Pannalal G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Ranawat) Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 1St Floor, Rangwala Building, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 13/15, Dhanji Street, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Adtpr 8070 M (Assessee) : (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 133A

entire year. He further noted that in course of survey, except some small discrepancy found with regard to cash-in-hand, no other incriminating material or discrepancy was noticed with regard to either sales or even stock. He observed, when the transfer of stock of 27 kgs. of gold ornaments ... department by conducting a survey at the Cuttack branch. In course of survey, some negligent discrepancy relating to cash-in-hand, no other incriminating material relating either to underreporting of sales or discrepancy in stock was found. However, at the time of survey, the department took in its possession CCTV

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are

ITA 2165/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) Dcit Cc – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम M/S. Tirupati Developers. 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (W.), Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रति आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 110/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Tirupati Developers. V/S. Dcit Cc – 7(3), 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi बनाम Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Industrial Estate, New Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Link Road, Andheri (W.), Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

erred in facts and law in not appreciating the fact that assessment had attained finality and no incriminating material was found during the course of search." Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return declaring nil income for AY 2012-13 on 28.09.2012. The assessee ... 100/Mum/2021 10. In the cross objection, the assessee raised the legal issue regarding the issue of notice u/s 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search. Since we have already granted relief on merits, this issue is rendered academic in nature and has become

Ashoka Tubewell Boring Engineering & Construction, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajhariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

dropped as it was suo motto declared in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act and there was no seizure of any incriminating material qua the said income during search. The plea of the assessee did not find favor with the AO and he, ultimately imposed penalty ... Page |3 ITA No. 90/PAT/2025 Ashoka Tubewell Boring Engineering & Construction; A.Y. 2016-17 submitted that during the course of search no incriminating material was found or seized qua the said additions. The Id. AR while referring to the assessment order passed by the Id. AO submitted that even

Shah Rakesh Bhikhabhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

cause notice (iii) What is the seized material? (iv) Did those persons mentioned the name of the assessee in their statement? (v) Whether any incriminating material belonging to the assessee has been found from these searched persons? (vi) How my transaction is alleged to be bogus (vii) What

Jangama Papa Rao, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1354/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 153CSection 69

Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 148 taxmann.com 286 (SC), no addition can be made in the assessment under section 153C unless it is based on incriminating material seized during search. Since the seized document and satisfaction note refer to Rs.10 lakhs receivable and not to any investment of Rs.17 lakhs ... Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that in respect of completed assessments, no addition can be made unless it is based on incriminating material found during search. In the present case, we find that, the original return of income was filed on 27.10.2018 and the notice under section 153C

M/S. Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 483/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Block-B, 2Nd Floor, Flat No.2E, Ward 1(1), Kolkata, Ideal Height, 302, Apc Road, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Vs. Raja Ram Mohan Sarani, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700009, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs0490A Assessee By : Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishak Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 5(2)

business premises of the assessee by DDIT (Investigation) Unit-3(4), Kolkata on 01.11.2012 and during the course of survey certain incriminating materials were found. During the course of survey, it was found that assessee company was engaged in providing accommodation entries on commission basis which was admitted

Homelife Buildcon Private Limited, Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Smt. Samandeep Kaur DCIT-Central Circle-1, Ludhiana, Punjab

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

ITA 880/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 153D

with the Digital Device recovered from Relevant of assessment premises from whom the digital device and order such data was alleged as of recovered incriminating material Ajay Kumar Pen Drive Unsigned copy of 11 & 12 Prabhakar. Agreement between VPO ayalikalan, Mini Jain and Asha Garg Ludhiana in connection with Plot ... judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Saksham Commodity’, reported in 161 taxman.com 485 and Abhisar Buildwel Pvt. Ld., requirement of incriminating material has to be there. No extrapolation could be made, even if some incriminating material is found and the addition had to be restricted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

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

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 153D

with the Digital Device recovered from Relevant of assessment premises from whom the digital device and order such data was alleged as of recovered incriminating material Ajay Kumar Pen Drive Unsigned copy of 11 & 12 Prabhakar. Agreement between VPO ayalikalan, Mini Jain and Asha Garg Ludhiana in connection with Plot ... judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Saksham Commodity’, reported in 161 taxman.com 485 and Abhisar Buildwel Pvt. Ld., requirement of incriminating material has to be there. No extrapolation could be made, even if some incriminating material is found and the addition had to be restricted

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 457/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

assessment years proposed to be reopened. The ld.AR submitted that a consolidated or omnibus satisfaction note encompassing multiple years without individualized reference to incriminating material for each year, as in the instant case, fails to meet the jurisdictional mandate and renders the entire proceeding void ab initio. 14. The ld.AR ... issue raised by the assessee is validity of the satisfaction recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment of the assessee based on the incriminating material found during the search. We find the extract of the satisfaction notes for invoking the :-36-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny/2025 & SA Nos.41

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 456/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

assessment years proposed to be reopened. The ld.AR submitted that a consolidated or omnibus satisfaction note encompassing multiple years without individualized reference to incriminating material for each year, as in the instant case, fails to meet the jurisdictional mandate and renders the entire proceeding void ab initio. 14. The ld.AR ... issue raised by the assessee is validity of the satisfaction recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment of the assessee based on the incriminating material found during the search. We find the extract of the satisfaction notes for invoking the :-36-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny/2025 & SA Nos.41

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 455/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

assessment years proposed to be reopened. The ld.AR submitted that a consolidated or omnibus satisfaction note encompassing multiple years without individualized reference to incriminating material for each year, as in the instant case, fails to meet the jurisdictional mandate and renders the entire proceeding void ab initio. 14. The ld.AR ... issue raised by the assessee is validity of the satisfaction recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment of the assessee based on the incriminating material found during the search. We find the extract of the satisfaction notes for invoking the :-36-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny/2025 & SA Nos.41

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 454/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

assessment years proposed to be reopened. The ld.AR submitted that a consolidated or omnibus satisfaction note encompassing multiple years without individualized reference to incriminating material for each year, as in the instant case, fails to meet the jurisdictional mandate and renders the entire proceeding void ab initio. 14. The ld.AR ... issue raised by the assessee is validity of the satisfaction recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment of the assessee based on the incriminating material found during the search. We find the extract of the satisfaction notes for invoking the :-36-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny/2025 & SA Nos.41

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 453/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

assessment years proposed to be reopened. The ld.AR submitted that a consolidated or omnibus satisfaction note encompassing multiple years without individualized reference to incriminating material for each year, as in the instant case, fails to meet the jurisdictional mandate and renders the entire proceeding void ab initio. 14. The ld.AR ... issue raised by the assessee is validity of the satisfaction recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment of the assessee based on the incriminating material found during the search. We find the extract of the satisfaction notes for invoking the :-36-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny/2025 & SA Nos.41

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Jayaraj Jaison, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 2512/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2512/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Jayaraj Jaison, Income Tax, Vs. No.9/10, Prop: Jaison Bkery, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli – 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan:Akgpj-2821-E] (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ In Short), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Madurai (‘Ao’ In Short), For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’ In Short) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

Shri R.Venkata Raman, Chartered Accountant, supporting the order of the ld.CIT(A) made the following written submission: 1. “During the course of survey, no incriminating material was found suggesting that the assessee had booked bogus purchases or the amount payable towards sundry creditors is bogus. 2. Further, no material ... assessee u/s.131 of the Act and offering additional income does not arise. - 10 - ITA No.2512/CHNY/2024 5. Despite of the absence of the incriminating material, the assessee had voluntarily offered to admit the additional business income of Rs.1,50,60,000/- to take care of the probable defects if any towards

Soumendra Kumar Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

ITA 284/CTK/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.284-289/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017) Soumendra Kumar Mohanty Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.130, Sm Tower, Bhubaneswar Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Pan No.: Abfpm 9538 D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.290/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Modern Engineering & Management Foundation, Banaparia, Kuruda, Balasore Pan No. : Aactm 1058 J Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena & Mohit Sheth, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Id. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 31.03.2025, For The

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 153DSection 246A

bogus liability especially when details of such liabilities, have been submitted earlier. Audited accounts were submitted to the Department resulting thereby no incriminating material was found for addition. The assessee has explained all seized materials on alleged unexplained cash. Genuineness of payment made to M/s. Architecture & Engineering Consultancy Services ... bogus liability especially when details of such liabilities, have been submitted earlier. Audited accounts were submitted to the Department resulting thereby no incriminating material was found for addition. The assessee has explained all seized materials on alleged unexplained cash. Genuineness of payment made to M/s. Architecture & Engineering Consultancy Services

Virendra Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (Th. VC)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

granted any opportunity to cross-examine either Shri Vimal Jain or Shri Vivek Kothari, whose statements and devices are the alleged source of incriminating material. This constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 1.8.vi Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (CIVIL APPEAL ... ratio of decision in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410. • In the case of Aarti Colonizers Company, certain incriminating material in the form of data stored in electronic medium was found in search conducted on the partners of the assessee firm. On the basis

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Late Shri V G Siddhartha, Represented by Legal Heir Ms. Malvika Hegde, Bengaluru

ITA 2132/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Rs.16,42,50,969/- by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act ignoring the fact that no incriminating material found/unearthed during the search in relation to impugned loan. Further erred in confirming the addition for the want of confirmation only ignoring the other evidence ... year falls under the category of unabated/completed assessment, no addition to the total income can be made in the absence of incriminating material. The assessee argued that as far as the issue of unsecured loan is concerned, which was duly disclosed in the books of accounts and the genuineness