← 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

Joginder Payla, Haryana vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2744/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 2741 To 2746/Del/2025 Ita Nos. 2819 & 2820/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Ghai, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

satisfaction note recorded to take cognizance u/s 153C of the Act or in the impugned orders there is any reference of any incriminating material found and relied. Reliance was heavily placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities ... cause of justice for both the assessee and Revenue. 5. Therefore, the factual legal aspect as raised before us with regard to absence of incriminating materials being referred in the satisfaction note or the assessment orders and that in regard to AY: 2020-21 assessment should have been u/s 153C

Joginder Payla, Haryana vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2743/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 2741 To 2746/Del/2025 Ita Nos. 2819 & 2820/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Ghai, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

satisfaction note recorded to take cognizance u/s 153C of the Act or in the impugned orders there is any reference of any incriminating material found and relied. Reliance was heavily placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities ... cause of justice for both the assessee and Revenue. 5. Therefore, the factual legal aspect as raised before us with regard to absence of incriminating materials being referred in the satisfaction note or the assessment orders and that in regard to AY: 2020-21 assessment should have been u/s 153C

Joginder Payla, Haryana vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2742/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 2741 To 2746/Del/2025 Ita Nos. 2819 & 2820/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Ghai, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

satisfaction note recorded to take cognizance u/s 153C of the Act or in the impugned orders there is any reference of any incriminating material found and relied. Reliance was heavily placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities ... cause of justice for both the assessee and Revenue. 5. Therefore, the factual legal aspect as raised before us with regard to absence of incriminating materials being referred in the satisfaction note or the assessment orders and that in regard to AY: 2020-21 assessment should have been u/s 153C

Joginder Payla, Haryana vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2741/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 2741 To 2746/Del/2025 Ita Nos. 2819 & 2820/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Ghai, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

satisfaction note recorded to take cognizance u/s 153C of the Act or in the impugned orders there is any reference of any incriminating material found and relied. Reliance was heavily placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities ... cause of justice for both the assessee and Revenue. 5. Therefore, the factual legal aspect as raised before us with regard to absence of incriminating materials being referred in the satisfaction note or the assessment orders and that in regard to AY: 2020-21 assessment should have been u/s 153C

Srs It Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3636/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 132(1)(A)Section 140Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153C

both the sides and perused the records. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee has filed a small Paper Book containing incriminating material relied upon by the AO during the course of hearing which the Ld. DR has filed during the hearing in the shape of copy ... Shri Naresh Kumar Goyal of M/s SRS Company which was recorded by Narendra Singh, DD(IT), Unit-3, New Delhi but no such incriminating material was filed to prove that the incriminating material found in search is related to the assessee. However, the same were found from other premises

Vishal Ramesh Fegade, Aurangabad vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2503/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2503/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vishal Ramesh Fegade, Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(5), A-B-8, Tapadia Pride, Aurangabad. Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Aanpf6699K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anup Shaha Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 27.08.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2020-21 Framed On 17.03.2013 By The Ito, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. I, Vishal Ramesh Fegade, Am A Salaried Employee & My Primary Source Of Income Is Derived Solely From My Employment. I Would Like To Explicitly State That I Have Not Made Any Cash Payments In Relation To The Purchase Of The Property In Question. All Payments Made Towards The Acquisition Of The Property Have Been Conducted Through Formal Banking Channels, Ensuring Full Transparency & Compliance With Legal Requirements. The Details Of These Payments Are Clearly Outlined In The Purchase Deed.

For Appellant: Shri Anup ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69

Group, Gadiya Group and others referred to the statement given by the Sales and Marketing Employee of Gadiya Group and also referred to certain incriminating material in the form of receipts for the cash received from the assessee towards on-money amounting to Rs.7,50,000/-. Since the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce-1(4), Chennai vs. Ramanathan Viswanathan, Chennai

ITA 1597/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

noted to have furnished his detailed submissions, in response to this notice. It has been brought to our notice that, since there was no incriminating material whatsoever found in the course of search conducted at the assessee’s premises, though notice(s) were issued u/s 153A ... confronted with these seized material and statement(s) and he is found to have denied the same. As already noted above, neither any incriminating material was found from the assessee’s premises nor did the assessee incriminate himself or admit to earning any commission income in the statement recorded

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Ramanathan Viswanathan, Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1556/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

noted to have furnished his detailed submissions, in response to this notice. It has been brought to our notice that, since there was no incriminating material whatsoever found in the course of search conducted at the assessee’s premises, though notice(s) were issued u/s 153A ... confronted with these seized material and statement(s) and he is found to have denied the same. As already noted above, neither any incriminating material was found from the assessee’s premises nor did the assessee incriminate himself or admit to earning any commission income in the statement recorded

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1324/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

noted to have furnished his detailed submissions, in response to this notice. It has been brought to our notice that, since there was no incriminating material whatsoever found in the course of search conducted at the assessee’s premises, though notice(s) were issued u/s 153A ... confronted with these seized material and statement(s) and he is found to have denied the same. As already noted above, neither any incriminating material was found from the assessee’s premises nor did the assessee incriminate himself or admit to earning any commission income in the statement recorded

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1323/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1321 To 1324/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 R. Viswanathan, Flat No.A-4, Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Adlpv 6760 G] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1556 & 1597/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. V. R. Viswanathan, Flat No.A-4, Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Adlpv 6760 G] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) : (यथ/Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri. V. Naga Prasad, Advocate/Ar थ की ओर से /Department By : Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit/Dr सुनवाईकतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 / 17.11.2025 घोषणाकतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

noted to have furnished his detailed submissions, in response to this notice. It has been brought to our notice that, since there was no incriminating material whatsoever found in the course of search conducted at the assessee’s premises, though notice(s) were issued u/s 153A ... confronted with these seized material and statement(s) and he is found to have denied the same. As already noted above, neither any incriminating material was found from the assessee’s premises nor did the assessee incriminate himself or admit to earning any commission income in the statement recorded

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1322/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

noted to have furnished his detailed submissions, in response to this notice. It has been brought to our notice that, since there was no incriminating material whatsoever found in the course of search conducted at the assessee’s premises, though notice(s) were issued u/s 153A ... confronted with these seized material and statement(s) and he is found to have denied the same. As already noted above, neither any incriminating material was found from the assessee’s premises nor did the assessee incriminate himself or admit to earning any commission income in the statement recorded

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1321/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1321 To 1324/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 R. Viswanathan, Flat No.A-4, Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Adlpv 6760 G] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1556 & 1597/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. V. R. Viswanathan, Flat No.A-4, Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Adlpv 6760 G] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) : (यथ/Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri. V. Naga Prasad, Advocate/Ar थ की ओर से /Department By : Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit/Dr सुनवाईकतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 / 17.11.2025 घोषणाकतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

noted to have furnished his detailed submissions, in response to this notice. It has been brought to our notice that, since there was no incriminating material whatsoever found in the course of search conducted at the assessee’s premises, though notice(s) were issued u/s 153A ... confronted with these seized material and statement(s) and he is found to have denied the same. As already noted above, neither any incriminating material was found from the assessee’s premises nor did the assessee incriminate himself or admit to earning any commission income in the statement recorded

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

conducted at the premises of the partners of the assessee. 5. During the search proceedings at the premises of the partners, certain incriminating materials pertaining to various transactions such as loans, purchases were found and seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions ... where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of Explanation

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

conducted at the premises of the partners of the assessee. 5. During the search proceedings at the premises of the partners, certain incriminating materials pertaining to various transactions such as loans, purchases were found and seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions ... where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of Explanation

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

conducted at the premises of the partners of the assessee. 5. During the search proceedings at the premises of the partners, certain incriminating materials pertaining to various transactions such as loans, purchases were found and seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions ... where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of Explanation

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

conducted at the premises of the partners of the assessee. 5. During the search proceedings at the premises of the partners, certain incriminating materials pertaining to various transactions such as loans, purchases were found and seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions ... where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of Explanation

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

conducted at the premises of the partners of the assessee. 5. During the search proceedings at the premises of the partners, certain incriminating materials pertaining to various transactions such as loans, purchases were found and seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions ... where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of Explanation

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

conducted at the premises of the partners of the assessee. 5. During the search proceedings at the premises of the partners, certain incriminating materials pertaining to various transactions such as loans, purchases were found and seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions ... where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of Explanation

Gauravkumar Ashok Kumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7201/MUM/2025[7201]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153C

relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A). It was submitted that the proceedings under section 153C were validly initiated based on incriminating material found in search action in the case of Rubberwala Group. It was argued that the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the seized Excel

Gauravkumar Ashok Kumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7200/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153C

relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A). It was submitted that the proceedings under section 153C were validly initiated based on incriminating material found in search action in the case of Rubberwala Group. It was argued that the statement of Shri Imran Ansari and the seized Excel