← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 1442/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

Shri Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act without considering the fact that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT- (A) has erred in upholding

Shri Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act without considering the fact that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT- (A) has erred in upholding

Shri Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act without considering the fact that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT- (A) has erred in upholding

Shri Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act without considering the fact that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT- (A) has erred in upholding

Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act without considering the fact that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT- (A) has erred in upholding

Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act without considering the fact that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT- (A) has erred in upholding

Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act without considering the fact that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT- (A) has erred in upholding

Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act without considering the fact that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT- (A) has erred in upholding

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Haryana Constructions Pvt Ltd, Gurugram

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal

ITA 2755/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Haryana Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-03, 14 Marla, Plot No. 7P, Sector-47, New Delhi Urban Estate, Ue 029, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch1215R Co 43/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 2755/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Haryana Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14 Marla, Plot No. 7P, Sector-47, Central Circle-03, Urban Estate, Ue 029, New Delhi Gurugram, Haryana 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch1215R Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Shri Parth Singhal, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sita Shrivastava, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Shrivastava, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 153D

otherwise too illegal, invalid and untenable. 4. That the additions made are without jurisdiction since they are not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search on the appellant. 5. That since approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act was mechanical, illegal and invalid approval, order ... framing of assessment u/s 153A of the Act on the assessee is to be declared illegal and void ab initio. Further, there was no incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd qua the subject mentioned addition made

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Indo Global Infra Energy Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 620/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

capital/ share premium / share application money of Rs.4,84,00,000/- has failed to consider the fact that during the course of search no incriminating material in respect of share capital / share application money have been found. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) while dismissing the appeal

Indo Global Infra Energy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

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

ITA 6944/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

capital/ share premium / share application money of Rs.4,84,00,000/- has failed to consider the fact that during the course of search no incriminating material in respect of share capital / share application money have been found. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) while dismissing the appeal

Indo Global Infra Energy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

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

ITA 6943/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

capital/ share premium / share application money of Rs.4,84,00,000/- has failed to consider the fact that during the course of search no incriminating material in respect of share capital / share application money have been found. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) while dismissing the appeal

Indo Global Infra Energy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

ITA 6942/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

capital/ share premium / share application money of Rs.4,84,00,000/- has failed to consider the fact that during the course of search no incriminating material in respect of share capital / share application money have been found. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) while dismissing the appeal

Vikas Dugar L/H of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

case of complete Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. assessment is not available in the absence of any incriminating material found during search in case of completed assessment. On the date of search in case of appellant, it is a case of completed assessment, thus ... could have assumed the jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act to make addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during search in case of the appellant. Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. 10. The appellant has assailed the Impugned Order passed

Vikas Dugar L/H of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 387/JPR/2025[A.Y.2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

case of complete Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. assessment is not available in the absence of any incriminating material found during search in case of completed assessment. On the date of search in case of appellant, it is a case of completed assessment, thus ... could have assumed the jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act to make addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during search in case of the appellant. Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. 10. The appellant has assailed the Impugned Order passed

Vikas Dugar Legal Heir of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 386/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

case of complete Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. assessment is not available in the absence of any incriminating material found during search in case of completed assessment. On the date of search in case of appellant, it is a case of completed assessment, thus ... could have assumed the jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act to make addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during search in case of the appellant. Sh. Vikash Dugar L/h Late of Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur. 10. The appellant has assailed the Impugned Order passed

Vinod Gupta, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhunjhunu

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 259/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251(1)

which he supported the version to have provided accommodation entries of non genuine purchases and non genuine sales to various parties. In addition thereto, incriminating material contained in certain digital devices was also taken into consideration. 21. As regards purchases, on behalf of the assessee-appellant, it has been submitted ... total, as against addition of Rs. 4,05,71,650/-. 26. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the incriminating material collected during survey proceeding, we deem it a fit case to confirm the addition only to the extent of Rs. 12,50,000/-as regards the accommodation entries

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad

ITA 866/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

assessee invalid. The CIT(A) held that the said decision recognised that the documents found during search at the Society’s premises could constitute incriminating material vis-à-vis the members in whose accounts money was deposited, and that the assessee being one such member, the reassessment proceedings were validly ... Nature of Remarks No. Credit 1. 3,64,53,850/- Business Offered to tax; supported by sales receipts / sales register and party accounts. No incriminating material found. The ITA No.829/Ahd/2024 and three Others Rashmin Kantilal Vakta Vs. DCIT 16 Payments received towards was found to be genuine. [as per para

Manish Ranjan, DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road vs. Rashmin Kantilal Vakta, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad Gujarat

ITA 865/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

assessee invalid. The CIT(A) held that the said decision recognised that the documents found during search at the Society’s premises could constitute incriminating material vis-à-vis the members in whose accounts money was deposited, and that the assessee being one such member, the reassessment proceedings were validly ... Nature of Remarks No. Credit 1. 3,64,53,850/- Business Offered to tax; supported by sales receipts / sales register and party accounts. No incriminating material found. The ITA No.829/Ahd/2024 and three Others Rashmin Kantilal Vakta Vs. DCIT 16 Payments received towards was found to be genuine. [as per para