“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

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

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

ITA 7199/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

Surajpal Singh Rathod, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6995/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsurajpal Singh Rathod Dcit, Central Circle 4(2) Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Ramdarshan Building, Mumbai-400 051 Keshavrao Kadam Marg, Vs. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Asfpr 6304 M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ravi Ganatra, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 30.08.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals (‘Cit(A)’ For Short)-52, Mumbai For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. The Solitary Dispute Arising In The Appeal Is In Relation To Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.3,50,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S. 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (Sr. DR)

Section 132Section 69A

books of accounts of RD Telinet Pvt. Ltd. Thus, such entry in the books of accounts coupled with the fact that no incriminating material was found from the residential premises of the assessee and the cash was found in the business premises of RD Telinet Pvt. Ltd. do establish assessee

Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5830/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishι.Τ.Α. No. 5827/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 153C

Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5829/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153C

Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5828/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishι.Τ.Α. No. 5827/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 153C

Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5827/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishι.Τ.Α. No. 5827/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 153C

Babulal Mulchand Varma, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3150/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

complied with. In the course of assessment proceedings, the complied with. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that certain incriminating material, Officer observed that certain incriminating material, Officer observed that certain incriminating material, stated to be in the nature of a ledger account maintained

Babulal Mulchand Varma, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3148/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

Ankit Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 6341/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Debarshi Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

merely de the basis of alleged statements under section 132(4) of the Act which was immediately retracted and without any corroborating evidences and incriminating material on record. Such statement ought not be relied upon for making addition of unaccounted commission and no cognizance of such retraced statement ought ... treating the sales of the appellant as bogus sales without having any corroborating evidences in form of independent witnesses and incriminating material on record and without making any enquiry and confirmation from other parties. The action of Ld. CIT (A) and AO is erroneous, bad in law and liable

Ankit Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 7, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Debarshi Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

Ashwani Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 3404/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer in the above searched party’s case had recorded his satisfaction that the corresponding incriminating material required to be forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 11.05.2022 which followed the latter’s satisfaction in the very financial year. That being the case

Ashwani Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

ITA 3403/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

Murari Lal Harish Chand Jaiswal Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Murari Lal Harish Chand Vs Dcit Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., 6043, Central Circle-31, Naya Bans, Chandni Delhi Chowk, Delhi-110006. Pan-Aaacm6428P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.30/10268/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2021 Passed U/S 153A Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Is A Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Tobacco Products & Derived Income From Profits & Gains From Business & From Capital Gain/Loss & Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2018, Declaring Income Of Inr 1,09,82,630/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Following Two Issues:- (I) Icds Compliance & Adjustment (Ii) Income U/S 56(2)(X)

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

settled position of law that in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act, additions could have been made based on the incriminating material. In the instant case, thought the proceedings u/s 143(3) were in progress when the search was carried out however, there is no document found ... Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; 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

Mukesh Jain, Indore vs. The ACIT (Central)-2, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 928/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: CA Sh. S.N. AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

third party. It was also submitted that the assessee had not advanced any cash loans to the alleged parties and that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the course of search. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee and held that the transactions recorded ... assessee challenged the validity of the proceedings under section 153C as well as the additions made on merits. It was contended that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search, that the seized documents were dumb documents found from the premises of MRJ Group, that

Mukesh Jain, Indore vs. The ACIT (Central)-2, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 927/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani1. Ι.Τ.Α. No.927/Ind/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. Ι.Τ.Α. No.928/Ind/2024 – Asst. Year 2014-15 Mukesh Jain C/O. S.V. Agrawal & Associates Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower Old Palasia 452 001 (Μ.Ρ.) Pan No. Abfpj 3732 L (Appellant) The Acit (Central)-2, Indore 452 001 (Respondent) Assessee By : Revenue By Ca Sh. S.N. Agrawal Sh. Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 Order Per Siddhartha Nautiyal - Jm: Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Cit(A)] Dated 23/10/2024 Passed For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Common Facts & Issues For Consideration Are Involved For Both The Years Under Consideration Before Us, These Appeals Are Being Taken Up Together (Grounds Extracted From Ay 2014- 15).

For Appellant: Revenue by

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

Vimal Alloys Private Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. Jao the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Patiala, Punjab

ITA 890/CHANDI/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

assessee went in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition by observing that the excel sheet constituted incriminating material found during search, that the assessee failed to rebut the same, and that the reopening was validly initiated on the basis of tangible material ... while dismissing the appeal of the assessee, held that the excel sheet constituted incriminating material found during search proceedings. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer with cogent evidence. 5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the reopening

Vikramkumar Kishanlal Mehta, Mahisagar vs. The DCIT, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 313/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.313/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikramkumar Kishanlal The Dcit बनाम/ Mehta Anand Circle V/S. C/O. Mahesh Masala Gruh Anand – 388 001 Udhyog 21, Gidc Estate Balasinor Mahisagar – 388 255 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqhpm 9958 I (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 05/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Vikramkumar Kishanlal Mehta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-19

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69

total transactions of Rs.4,34,09,924/-. Therefore, the contention of the Ld.AR that the name of the assessee did not figure in the incriminating material is not tenable. Hence, the same is rejected as such. 6.1. However, the undisputed fact is that the AO has not disputed the purchases

Purushotham Naidu Lekkala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1726/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Section 115BSection 132Section 153DSection 292CSection 4Section 65B

other hand, supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, it is an admitted fact that, during the course of search, incriminating material in the form of loose sheets from page nos. 1 to 41 were found from the possession of Shri G. Archan Kumar, an employee

Lekcon Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1725/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Section 115BSection 132Section 153DSection 292CSection 4Section 65B

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'बी' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1105/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

That the assessment was concluded and unabated on the relevant date in terms of first proviso to section 153C r/w section 153A and no incriminating material pertaining or containing any information relating to appellant was found in the search, the Assessing Officer erred in not repeating the concluded assessment. That ... seizure as Mr. Shahnawaj's residence, while the loose sheets were actually seized from the office of Kings Radio Exim Pvt. Ltd. Since no incriminating material was found, the appellant argued that the concluded assessment should have been repeated, in line with section 153C. The appellant argued that the loose