← 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

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1909/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having assessed the appellant in terms of Section 153A of the Act based on the incriminating materials seized during the search in the premises of Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others in contra distinction to the search in the premises of the appellant here ... where in no incriminating materials were seized for the purpose of making the disputed addition(s) in the search assessment order(s), the consequential search assessment order pass should be reckoned as bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having used the disputed search

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1908/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having assessed the appellant in terms of Section 153A of the Act based on the incriminating materials seized during the search in the premises of Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others in contra distinction to the search in the premises of the appellant here ... where in no incriminating materials were seized for the purpose of making the disputed addition(s) in the search assessment order(s), the consequential search assessment order pass should be reckoned as bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having used the disputed search

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1907/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having assessed the appellant in terms of Section 153A of the Act based on the incriminating materials seized during the search in the premises of Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others in contra distinction to the search in the premises of the appellant here ... where in no incriminating materials were seized for the purpose of making the disputed addition(s) in the search assessment order(s), the consequential search assessment order pass should be reckoned as bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having used the disputed search

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1906/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having assessed the appellant in terms of Section 153A of the Act based on the incriminating materials seized during the search in the premises of Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others in contra distinction to the search in the premises of the appellant here ... where in no incriminating materials were seized for the purpose of making the disputed addition(s) in the search assessment order(s), the consequential search assessment order pass should be reckoned as bad in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that having used the disputed search

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. M/S Industrial Mineral Co., 100% Eou, Tuticorin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 529/CHNY/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

towards land development expenses for AY 2012-13 stating for the reason that these disallowances made in the unabated assessments have no nexus with incriminating materials found and seized during the course of search. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that as per the provisions of Sec.153A ... immoveable property. All these conditions were held to be fulfilled in the present case. The assessee also argued that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned additions could not be made. However, Ld. AO referred to loose sheets as seized by the department during search on assessee and rejected

Industrial Mineral Co, 100%Eou, Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 390/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

towards land development expenses for AY 2012-13 stating for the reason that these disallowances made in the unabated assessments have no nexus with incriminating materials found and seized during the course of search. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that as per the provisions of Sec.153A ... immoveable property. All these conditions were held to be fulfilled in the present case. The assessee also argued that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned additions could not be made. However, Ld. AO referred to loose sheets as seized by the department during search on assessee and rejected