← 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

Ishwarlal Javahara Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7196/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 153CSection 250

appears “as to what material and/or which Excel sheet the addition has been made”. Further, the Assessing Officer made the addition without confronting the incriminating material and/or without providing any opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were mainly relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Even otherwise there ... premises of Rubberwala Group and Mr. Ansari or otherwise from the Assessee, no cash voucher, receipt, ledger or document signed by the Assessee and incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, was ever found. Whereas, the Assessee specifically claimed before the Assessing Officer that she has not made any cash

DCIT Central Circle 2 Thane, Thane vs. Hiren Bechar Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are decided as follows:-

ITA 4062/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H. Patel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

justified in upholding the addition of Rs.50,00,000 in case of Olender Manufacture & Credit Ltd u/s.68 r.w.s 115BBE on the basis of non-incriminating material. The Assessing Officer may please be directed to delete such addition. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, and amend any ground/s ... submissions made by the appellant. The first contention of the appellant is that the addition made by the AO is not based on any incriminating material. Before deciding the contention raised by the appellant, it is necessary to consider as to what constitutes an incriminating material. Though the said term

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7913/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

attained finality and were unabated assessments as on the date of search, and therefore, no addition could have been made in the absence of incriminating material discovered during the course of search. He submitted that none of the additions made by the Assessing Officer in these years were based ... orders reveals that none of the additions made in assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 have been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made solely on the basis of examination of return of income, financial statements

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7912/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

attained finality and were unabated assessments as on the date of search, and therefore, no addition could have been made in the absence of incriminating material discovered during the course of search. He submitted that none of the additions made by the Assessing Officer in these years were based ... orders reveals that none of the additions made in assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 have been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made solely on the basis of examination of return of income, financial statements

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7911/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

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

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

attained finality and were unabated assessments as on the date of search, and therefore, no addition could have been made in the absence of incriminating material discovered during the course of search. He submitted that none of the additions made by the Assessing Officer in these years were based ... orders reveals that none of the additions made in assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 have been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made solely on the basis of examination of return of income, financial statements

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7910/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

attained finality and were unabated assessments as on the date of search, and therefore, no addition could have been made in the absence of incriminating material discovered during the course of search. He submitted that none of the additions made by the Assessing Officer in these years were based ... orders reveals that none of the additions made in assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 have been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made solely on the basis of examination of return of income, financial statements

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7909/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

attained finality and were unabated assessments as on the date of search, and therefore, no addition could have been made in the absence of incriminating material discovered during the course of search. He submitted that none of the additions made by the Assessing Officer in these years were based ... orders reveals that none of the additions made in assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 have been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made solely on the basis of examination of return of income, financial statements

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

attained finality and were unabated assessments as on the date of search, and therefore, no addition could have been made in the absence of incriminating material discovered during the course of search. He submitted that none of the additions made by the Assessing Officer in these years were based ... orders reveals that none of the additions made in assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 have been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made solely on the basis of examination of return of income, financial statements

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7907/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

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

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

attained finality and were unabated assessments as on the date of search, and therefore, no addition could have been made in the absence of incriminating material discovered during the course of search. He submitted that none of the additions made by the Assessing Officer in these years were based ... orders reveals that none of the additions made in assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 have been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made solely on the basis of examination of return of income, financial statements

Pushpa Vikas Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Mumbai, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7098/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

appears “as to what material and/or which Excel sheet the addition has been made”. Further, the Assessing Officer made the addition without confronting the incriminating material and/or without providing any opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were mainly relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Even otherwise there ... premises of Rubberwala Group and Mr. Ansari or otherwise from the Assessee, no cash voucher, receipt, ledger or document signed by the Assessee and incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, was ever found. Whereas, the Assessee specifically claimed ITA No.7095 & 7096/M/2025 5 Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain AND ITA No.7097 & 7098/M/2025

Pushpa Vikas Jain, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Mumbai, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7097/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

appears “as to what material and/or which Excel sheet the addition has been made”. Further, the Assessing Officer made the addition without confronting the incriminating material and/or without providing any opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were mainly relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Even otherwise there ... premises of Rubberwala Group and Mr. Ansari or otherwise from the Assessee, no cash voucher, receipt, ledger or document signed by the Assessee and incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, was ever found. Whereas, the Assessee specifically claimed before the Assessing Officer that she has not made any cash

Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7096/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

appears “as to what material and/or which Excel sheet the addition has been made”. Further, the Assessing Officer made the addition without confronting the incriminating material and/or without providing any opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were mainly relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Even otherwise there ... premises of Rubberwala Group and Mr. Ansari or otherwise from the Assessee, no cash voucher, receipt, ledger or document signed by the Assessee and incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, was ever found. Whereas, the Assessee specifically claimed ITA No.7095 & 7096/M/2025 5 Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain AND ITA No.7097 & 7098/M/2025

Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 7095/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

appears “as to what material and/or which Excel sheet the addition has been made”. Further, the Assessing Officer made the addition without confronting the incriminating material and/or without providing any opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were mainly relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Even otherwise there ... premises of Rubberwala Group and Mr. Ansari or otherwise from the Assessee, no cash voucher, receipt, ledger or document signed by the Assessee and incriminating material directly connected with the Assessee, was ever found. Whereas, the Assessee specifically claimed ITA No.7095 & 7096/M/2025 5 Pinkydevi Mahendrakumar Jain AND ITA No.7097 & 7098/M/2025

Neysa Jewllery Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Officer (AO) noted that a survey action under section 133A was carried out on office premises of assessee on 19.01.2006. During survey action, certain incriminating material was found and when it was confronted with the assessee, the director of assessee-company admitted that deduction of Rs. 4.82 crore under section

Eager Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5258/MUM/2024[A.Y 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

assessments framed under section 153A read with section 144 are legally sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to the respective assessment years. (II) Whether the additions made towards unsecured loans, suspense credits, disallowance of expenses including salary, interest and administrative expenses ... learned CIT(A) was justified in sustaining and affirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer despite the absence of any specific reference to incriminating material found during the course of search forming the basis of such additions, and whether such confirmation is legally sustainable in light of the settled

Eager Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2024[A.Y 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

assessments framed under section 153A read with section 144 are legally sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to the respective assessment years. (II) Whether the additions made towards unsecured loans, suspense credits, disallowance of expenses including salary, interest and administrative expenses ... learned CIT(A) was justified in sustaining and affirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer despite the absence of any specific reference to incriminating material found during the course of search forming the basis of such additions, and whether such confirmation is legally sustainable in light of the settled

Eager Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5220/MUM/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

assessments framed under section 153A read with section 144 are legally sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to the respective assessment years. (II) Whether the additions made towards unsecured loans, suspense credits, disallowance of expenses including salary, interest and administrative expenses ... learned CIT(A) was justified in sustaining and affirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer despite the absence of any specific reference to incriminating material found during the course of search forming the basis of such additions, and whether such confirmation is legally sustainable in light of the settled

Sh. Krishan Lal Bishnoi, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-30, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3588/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S Gupt, CIT DR
Section 153C

information available on record, we observed that the issues relating to material found during search conducted in the case of Kuldeep Bishnoi Group and incriminating material which was found during the search pertains to the assessee. Accordingly, satisfaction was recorded and proceedings were initiated against the assessee u/s 153C

E Factor Adventure Tourism Private Limited, Delhi vs. The DCIT, CC-13, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3006/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.3006/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2017-18) E Factor Adventure Tourism P. Ltd., 101 A, Kundan Kutir, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi 110014 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aabce-7871-R बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Central Circle-13, New Delhi 110055 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By: Shri S.K Chaturvedi, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-26, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2025, For Ay 2017-18 In Proceedings U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.K Chaturvedi, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

ground no. 1 of appeal, the assessee has assailed validity of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material. We find that the said issue does not emanate from the order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee is seeking relief

Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Cricle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

ITA Nos.90, 95 & 104/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL