← 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

Ns Healthcare Services Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 145/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT 2015) 62 taxmann.com 215/234 Taxmann771,wherein it was held that even a Sworn statement shall also constitute incriminating material to dislodge any earlier finding for the purpose of making an assessment u/s 153A. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision

Alliance Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2278/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
For Respondent: For Mr.K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessment u/s.153C r.w.s.153A of the Act; and as per the settled position of law in respect of unabated assessment, only on the basis of incriminating materials qua assessee qua for AY 2017-18, any addition can be made. [refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... Sinhgad Technical Education Society 250 Taxman 225]. It is undisputed fact that there was no incriminating material for making any disallowance under PF/ESI found during search. Therefore, the AO can't be blamed for not making any disallowance on this count. Therefore, on the aforesaid two (2) reasons stated supra

Citron Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT Central -4, Mumbai

ITA 2654/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Citron Infraprojects Ltd., Pr. Cit (Central)-4, 97, 9Th Floor, Maker Tower F, Room No.663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Cuffe Parade, Vs. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 3735 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 260ASection 263

pass fresh Assessment Order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act with respect to an issue which is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of the search. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee originally filed its return of income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vividham Sweets & Dry Fruits, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3143/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 133Section 69A

survey action u/s 133(A) of the Act was conducted on 20/10/2018 by the ACIT-32(3), Mumbai. During the survey action, certain incriminating material were I.T.A. No. 3143/Mum/2022 2 found, seized and impounded which consisted of cash book, cash memo, annexures, loose papers, pass book etc. 5. The assessee

Smt. Sufhila Chandra, Dehradun vs. ACIT, CC-, Dehradun

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 151/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Smt. Sushila Chandra, Vs. Acit, 57, Lane-4, Krishan Vatika, Central Circle, Lane-1, Phase-1, Doon Dehradun Divine, Dhurankas, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun Pan :Ajepc9713B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitish Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 153C

very issue in assessee’s favour. And also that their lordships concluded that section 148/147 proceedings initiated on the basis of such seized incriminating material leads to initiation of the specific provision under section 153C than the general reopening mechanism under section 148/147 of the Act. Hon’ble jurisdictional high

Santosh Agrawal, Chattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Cirlce-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/VIZ/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

Supreme Court in the case of B. Kishore Kumar v. DCIT [(2015) 62 Taxmann.com 215] and argued that sworn statement shall also constitute incriminating material. Ld. DR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bannalal Jat Constructions P. Ltd., v. ACIT ... payments have been made through bank accounts which are produced before the revenue authorities for verification. 16. Similarly, Ld.AR also submitted that no incriminating material was seized with respect to the investment made by Shri Anunay Agrawal during the A.Y. 2016-17. He further submitted that Shri Anunay Agrawal acquired

Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/VIZ/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

Supreme Court in the case of B. Kishore Kumar v. DCIT [(2015) 62 Taxmann.com 215] and argued that sworn statement shall also constitute incriminating material. Ld. DR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bannalal Jat Constructions P. Ltd., v. ACIT ... payments have been made through bank accounts which are produced before the revenue authorities for verification. 16. Similarly, Ld.AR also submitted that no incriminating material was seized with respect to the investment made by Shri Anunay Agrawal during the A.Y. 2016-17. He further submitted that Shri Anunay Agrawal acquired

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Shreeaumji Infrastructure and Projects Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 2786/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153A(1)Section 153C

which assessments can be completed in the case of ‘other person' stands settled that it is from the date of handing over of incriminating material and recording of the satisfaction the block assessments periods have to be determined. On the admitted facts, it comes up that notices u/s 153C were

Shreeaumji Infrastructure and Porjects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 2343/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 153C

which assessments can be completed in the case of ‘other person' stands settled that it is from the date of handing over of incriminating material and recording of the satisfaction the block assessments periods have to be determined. On the admitted facts, it comes up that notices u/s 153C were

Shreeaumji Infrastructure and Porjects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2342/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Salil AggarwaL, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

which assessments can be completed in the case of ‘other person’ stands settled that it is from the date of handing over of incriminating material and recording of the satisfaction the block assessments periods have to be determined. On the admitted facts, it comes up that notices u/s 153C were

Shreeaumji Infrastructure and Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 2341/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153A(1)Section 153C

which assessments can be completed in the case of ‘other person' stands settled that it is from the date of handing over of incriminating material and recording of the satisfaction the block assessments periods have to be determined. On the admitted facts, it comes up that notices u/s 153C were

Vision Exports, Moradabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Moradabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vision Exports, Vs Acit, Faridpur, Sambhal Road, Central Circle, Moradabad – 244 001, Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aajfv0634Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ca; Shri Mohammad Ammar, Ca & Shri Tariq Nafees, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Lucknow-3/10314/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 30.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle, Moradabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Act, at the premises of the assessee firm. During the course of the search, incriminating materials were discovered, based on which the assessee firm voluntarily surrendered alleged unaccounted income amounting to Rs.9,85,00,000/-. The case of revenue is that ... following: 1. Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore only) attributed to purchases made outside the regular books of accounts, as evidenced by the incriminating materials uncovered during the search. 2 2. Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lakh only) representing unrecorded construction expenses related to the building

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

ITA 1349/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

basis of presumption and there is no evidence in support of such contention and further, he gave the benefit to the assessee that no incriminating material was found or seized in the course of search. He also submitted that the Unit No.S1-001 was not related to the assessee company ... above observation, ld. 12 ITA Nos.1336, 1349 & 1193/DEL/2021 CIT (A) observed that the addition made by the AO has no relevance to any incriminating material found during search, the assessee has submitted complete details of the lenders including their names, addresses and PAN numbers and he observed that all these

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

ITA 1336/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

basis of presumption and there is no evidence in support of such contention and further, he gave the benefit to the assessee that no incriminating material was found or seized in the course of search. He also submitted that the Unit No.S1-001 was not related to the assessee company ... above observation, ld. 12 ITA Nos.1336, 1349 & 1193/DEL/2021 CIT (A) observed that the addition made by the AO has no relevance to any incriminating material found during search, the assessee has submitted complete details of the lenders including their names, addresses and PAN numbers and he observed that all these

Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1193/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Central Circle, Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

basis of presumption and there is no evidence in support of such contention and further, he gave the benefit to the assessee that no incriminating material was found or seized in the course of search. He also submitted that the Unit No.S1-001 was not related to the assessee company ... above observation, ld. 12 ITA Nos.1336, 1349 & 1193/DEL/2021 CIT (A) observed that the addition made by the AO has no relevance to any incriminating material found during search, the assessee has submitted complete details of the lenders including their names, addresses and PAN numbers and he observed that all these

M/S. K World Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6184/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 K. World Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, B-2/4, Plot No.2, Central Circle-8, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. Db Gupta Road, Near Faiz Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. Pan: Aadck8693B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : .06.2025

For Appellant: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, DrFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 260ASection 68

23/2021, judgement dated 12.02.2021 by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court to contend that statement of another person cannot be considered incriminating material without corroboration. The relevant extract is reproduced as below: “7. The preliminary question under consideration before us is whether a statement under Section 132(4) constitutes incriminating ... this court as well as the decisions of other High Courts and Tribunals. In the said case, it was held that the existence of incriminating material found during the course of the search is a sine qua non for making additions pursuant to a search and seizure operation

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 680/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Ground Nos.1 to 3 raised challenging the legal validity of the impugned order passed u/s 153A of the Act for want of any incriminating material found in the course of search has been rendered infructuous and is therefore not being separately adjudicated upon. ITA No.676/Chny/2025 ... assessee that, the impugned addition could not have been made in the assessment u/s 153A of the Act, as it was based on incriminating material found in the premises of third party, i.e. Shri Anbu. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the impugned addition had a reference to the seized

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक