“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

Arjanbhai Nanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward -2 TDS, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the additions made by learned Assessing Officer without any incriminating material found during the search. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in estimating profit margin at the rate ... erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the additions made by learned Assessing Officer without any incriminating material found during the search. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in estimating profit margin at the rate

Shri Gayatri Constructions, Nellore vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld.AO has erred in not restricting himself to the income originally assessed/returned as there is no incriminating material found during the course of search relating to this AY. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that in a search assessment ... addition can be made to the concluded assessments without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search proceedings. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld. AO has erred in passing

Viswanadh Kandula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

fulfilment of the prescribed conditions laid down u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the alleged incriminating material was found from the Laptop of one Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka from his residential premises and therefore, the seizure of the Laptop and collecting ... submitted that the material seized by the Department from the Sr. Accounts Manager of the assessee’s group would be an incriminating material from the purpose of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The possession of the incriminating material by the Sr. Accounts Manager of the assessee group

Upakar Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Cent Cir-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 379/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 201Section 36(1)(iii)

this count. 9.1 The alternate argument of the assessee is that, the assessment year under consideration is an unabated year and there was no incriminating material before the Ld. AO for the year under consideration. Therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee in absence ... incriminating material. The similar issue had been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., 149 Taxmann 399, wherein the ITA Nos.377 to 380/Hyd/2023, 8 383/Hyd/2023 & 384/Hyd/2023 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, in case of unabated year

Upakar Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Cent Cir-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 378/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 201Section 36(1)(iii)

Mehers Handloom Private Limited, Sonepur vs. ACIT-1 Central Circle, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 550/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A Nos.01 To 06/Ctk/2024 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Years: 2009 Assessment Years: 2009 -10 To 2014-15 15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mehers Mehers Handloom Handloom Private Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Aayakar Acit, Central Circle Limited, Bada Bazar, Sonepur Limited, Bada Bazar, Sonepur Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcm 9443 P Aadcm 9443 P (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Binod Kumar Agarwal, Ca Binod Kumar Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar Of The Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 All Dated 26.10.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10809/2017 2/10809/2017-18, Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10810/2017 2/10810/2017-18, Cit(A), Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10811/2017-18, Bhubaneswar Cit(A), Cit(A), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar- 2/10812/2017-18, 18, Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10813/2017 2/10813/2017-18, Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10814/2017 2/10814/2017-18 & Cit(A), Bhubaneswar 18 & Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10815/2017- 18, For The Assessment Years 2009 Essment Years 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. 16, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Binod Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT

even the ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate various grounds of appeal including that no assessment is permissible in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. It was his prayer that since the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed

Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(5), New Delhi vs. Shrey Aeren, Delhi

ITA 2383/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2382/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Parveen Gupta Acit, H 240, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Vs. Central Circle 30, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaopg3625N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2383/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Gautam Gupta Dcit, H.No.97, 1St Floor, G Block, Vs. Central Circle 30, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Ajjpg3284A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition even though no incriminating material or evidence suggesting unexplained investment in the property was Sound during search or otherwise. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Avnish Agrawal, Noida vs. DCIT, CC 1, Noida

Appeals are hereby allowed in above terms

ITA 1173/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Supreme International. That being the case, the assessee’s again takes us to pages 14 to 17 in the paper book compiling the alleged incriminating material which is found as nothing but blank letter heads of all the preceding four entities. 3. Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently ... argues that once the departmental authorities had found/ seized the said incriminating material/ blank 3 ITA nos. 2128 to 2131 of 2022 & 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 - M/s RG Home Furnishing P. Ltd. letter heads from the assessee’s hard disk and the post search inquiries specifically indicated them

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur vs. M/S. N. R. Tmt(India) Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh

In the result, while for the appeal/preliminary objection filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 9/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Nr Tmt (India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.106, Goverdhan Tower, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh Pan: Aaecp8302R

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153D

loss, etc., there are chances of minor difference; (iii) the method adopted for weighment of stock by search party was not proper; (iv) no incriminating material was found during search 'which could prove that the assessee had purchased or sold the goods outside the books; (v) the difference in shortage ... search team to get the actual weighment of stock found during the course of search operation, which was not done; that no other incriminating material was found during the course of search relating to unaccounted stock, excess physical stock was calculated by Revenue authority on estimative and presumptive basis

M/S Nrtmt(India) Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur

In the result, while for the appeal/preliminary objection filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153D

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Avinash Singla, Khanna

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 815/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 814 & 815/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Avinash Singla, Central Circle-1, बनाम C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Acypk9591N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Meenu Singla, बनाम Central Circle-1, C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No.Afips6556G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Virsain AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

order, facts of the case and legal position. Before proceeding further, it is very important to analyze and understand the meaning of the term 'incriminating material' and position of law on assessment u/s 153A/153C cases. Now this issue of scope of assessment u/s 153A of the Act has been decided ... 132A, the A.O. assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153 A; ii) All pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) In case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Avinash Singla, Khanna

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 814/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate andFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 153DSection 263

Wing of Income Tax Department prepares a ITA Nos. 343 & 344/LKW/2019 Page 12 of 20 comprehensive ‘Appraisal Report’ which takes into account all the incriminating materials, statements seizures etc. and also suggests their estimate of undisclosed income, as well as suggested lines of further investigation to be conducted ... supported by credible material and, therefore, is unsustainable. ITA Nos. 343 & 344/LKW/2019 Page 16 of 20 (2.1.1) It is not in dispute that no incriminating material was found during search under section 132 of the Act conducted in the case of the assessee, in respect of the issue on which

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. Uniglobal Papers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2181/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

directed the AO to delete the addition in respect of share application money on the ground that the addition was not linked to any incriminating materials found and seized during the course of search but are based on post search enquiries and statements recorded during that enquiry. On merits ... 153A of the Act. Now the issue before us for adjudication is whether the AO has jurisdiction to make additions without there being any incriminating materials seized during the search. In our opinion the addition in case of unabated assessment can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. Uniglobal Papers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2180/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva vs. Balajee Vinimay Private Limted, Ramnath Gowenka Marg, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

make addition in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) read with sec. 153A of the Act in absence of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search in an unabated assessment. First of all, we would like to adjudicate the legal issue raised by the assessee ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) should have held that in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search, the additions of Rs.4,08,45,000/- on account of share capital raised during the relevant

Alps Construction, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3953/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

have been done, since the return income of that year was accepted by the revenue under scrutiny assessment proceedings and no new fact or incriminating material was found during the search. 8.10 A chart showing, returned income of the assessee, credit in bank account, commissioned earned, net profit, addition made ... income was accepted, so no estimation should be done, cannot be accepted, as this would lead to further verification of facts, that whether any incriminating material was surfaced during the search or not, while the legal grounds are not pressed by the ld. AR, thus are rendered being dismissed

Vgu-Technology Business Incubator Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption Jaipur, Jaipur

28. In view of the above finding, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) confirming the impugned assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is hereby set aside

ITA 799/JPR/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jan 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

same time, it has been submitted that, at the most, the Assessing Officer could proceed with assessment proceedings u/s 153 C, particularly when no incriminating material was found or seized from the residential premises of the appellant. 9. In support of written submission on this point, Learned AR has extracted ... requisition made does not render s. 148 otiose-Sec. 148 shall continue to apply to the regular proceedings and also in cases where no incriminating material is seized during the search or requisition- Argument that s. 153C can be invoked in case there is incriminating material for all the relevant

Ge Nuovo Pignone Spa, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 6893/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 44D

income of INR 586,728,699/-. Later on, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Act based on the incriminating material gathered during the course of survey operations carried out at the business/office premises of General Electric International Operation Company Inc., India liaison Office

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Jayanti Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6548/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

Court considered the relevant facts on record and deleted the addition in the hands of Mr. Sanjay Dalmia based on the findings that no incriminating material brought on record by the Revenue, the relevant findings are given below: “13. The material that the petitioner/assessee had was deficient in several aspects