← 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

G.S.Auto International Limited, Ludhiana vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 391/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.391/Chandi/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 G.S. Auto International बनाम Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Limited Ludhiana G.S. Estate, G T Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacg6090R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri P. K. Goel, Ca & Shri Sunil Arora, Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Assessment Year : 2012-13 G.S. Auto International Limited Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Goel, CA and Shri SunilFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69

various other judicial pronouncements which held that no additions can be made incompleted/unabated assessment U/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search/seizure operations. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-5 while sustaining the addition failed to appreciate that the appellant being a listed company with Bombay ... pleaded that no additions in this case were warranted in an assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search action, the assessment being not abated/completed on the date of search action in the case of the assessee

Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 526/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.523 To 526/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Shri Udaya Sridhar Reddy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Siddareddy Central Circle 2(4) Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Pan:Aiyps1063R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhani, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order Dated 30.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Ys.2014-15 To 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On 15.5.2024 As Well As On 16.05.2024. Hence, We Are Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhani, DR
Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 153ASection 2

income of Rs.8,65,410/-. During the course of survey operations in the case of M/s Venkata Srinivas Infracon Pvt. Ltd on 26.10.2018, certain incriminating material was impounded vide order u/s 133A(3)(ia) dated 26,10.2018. As per impounding material in Annexure A/VSPL/2, several fish farm lease agreements have

Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 525/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.523 To 526/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Shri Udaya Sridhar Reddy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Siddareddy Central Circle 2(4) Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Pan:Aiyps1063R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhani, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order Dated 30.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Ys.2014-15 To 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On 15.5.2024 As Well As On 16.05.2024. Hence, We Are Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhani, DR
Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 153ASection 2

income of Rs.8,65,410/-. During the course of survey operations in the case of M/s Venkata Srinivas Infracon Pvt. Ltd on 26.10.2018, certain incriminating material was impounded vide order u/s 133A(3)(ia) dated 26,10.2018. As per impounding material in Annexure A/VSPL/2, several fish farm lease agreements have

Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT Central Circle - 2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 524/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.523 To 526/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Shri Udaya Sridhar Reddy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Siddareddy Central Circle 2(4) Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Pan:Aiyps1063R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhani, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order Dated 30.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Ys.2014-15 To 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On 15.5.2024 As Well As On 16.05.2024. Hence, We Are Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhani, DR
Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 153ASection 2

income of Rs.8,65,410/-. During the course of survey operations in the case of M/s Venkata Srinivas Infracon Pvt. Ltd on 26.10.2018, certain incriminating material was impounded vide order u/s 133A(3)(ia) dated 26,10.2018. As per impounding material in Annexure A/VSPL/2, several fish farm lease agreements have

Udaya Sridhar Reddy Siddareddy, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 523/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.523 To 526/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18) Shri Udaya Sridhar Reddy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Siddareddy Central Circle 2(4) Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Pan:Aiyps1063R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhani, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order Dated 30.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Ys.2014-15 To 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On 15.5.2024 As Well As On 16.05.2024. Hence, We Are Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhani, DR
Section 133A(3)(ia)Section 153ASection 2

income of Rs.8,65,410/-. During the course of survey operations in the case of M/s Venkata Srinivas Infracon Pvt. Ltd on 26.10.2018, certain incriminating material was impounded vide order u/s 133A(3)(ia) dated 26,10.2018. As per impounding material in Annexure A/VSPL/2, several fish farm lease agreements have

M/S Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 967/CHNY/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.966/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.967/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Ruby Realty Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ No. B-908, Radiance Shine Apts, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-2832-B (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153C

paid in cash on 9-9-2006. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no material in his possession to suggest seizure of any incriminating material to even assume jurisdiction u/s 153C. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C despite being aware ... disallowed invoking the provisions of Sec. 40A(3). 3.3 During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the addition was not based on any incriminating material as found during the course of search. The Ld. AO did not record any satisfaction note before making assessment u/s 153C. 3.4 Rejecting the same

M/S Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 966/CHNY/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.966/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.967/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Ruby Realty Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ No. B-908, Radiance Shine Apts, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-2832-B (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153C

paid in cash on 9-9-2006. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no material in his possession to suggest seizure of any incriminating material to even assume jurisdiction u/s 153C. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153C despite being aware ... disallowed invoking the provisions of Sec. 40A(3). 3.3 During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the addition was not based on any incriminating material as found during the course of search. The Ld. AO did not record any satisfaction note before making assessment u/s 153C. 3.4 Rejecting the same

M/S. Jayam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1061/CHNY/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1061/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Jayam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.B-908, Radiance Shine Apartments, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-4327-R (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथPकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar TuथPकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Smt. Komali Krishna (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

seized in the course of search. The impugned addition was based on some alleged evidence found during earlier search on OSAPL. No fresh incriminating material / evidence connected to the assessee were found during search on assessee group. The assessee, relying on CBDT Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015, submitted that ... affected sale of lands to OSAPL and there was on-money paid on such transactions. The proceedings were thus initiated u/s.153C based on the incriminating materials found from the searched person as belonging / pertaining to the assessee. The AO duly recorded satisfaction note before issuance of notice u/s 153C which

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 71/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

which is deemed to have been concluded was not correct. 4. The search of the assessee u/s.132 did not result in discovery of any incriminating material in support of the addition. The material relied upon was already available with the Assessing Officer which had been collected in the course ... found with another entity searched u/s 132 earlier while making the assessment u/s 153A of the appellant which has to be restricted to only incriminating material found in the course of search of the assessee u/s 132. Addition based on any other material or document in respect to a concluded

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 70/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

which is deemed to have been concluded was not correct. 4. The search of the assessee u/s.132 did not result in discovery of any incriminating material in support of the addition. The material relied upon was already available with the Assessing Officer which had been collected in the course ... found with another entity searched u/s 132 earlier while making the assessment u/s 153A of the appellant which has to be restricted to only incriminating material found in the course of search of the assessee u/s 132. Addition based on any other material or document in respect to a concluded

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 69/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

which is deemed to have been concluded was not correct. 4. The search of the assessee u/s.132 did not result in discovery of any incriminating material in support of the addition. The material relied upon was already available with the Assessing Officer which had been collected in the course ... found with another entity searched u/s 132 earlier while making the assessment u/s 153A of the appellant which has to be restricted to only incriminating material found in the course of search of the assessee u/s 132. Addition based on any other material or document in respect to a concluded

Plantium Holding P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3436/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3436/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Platinum Holdings Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.2/1, Abu Garden, Omr Road, Central Circle-3(4) Vs. Navalur, Chennai-600 103. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-8781-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Smt. Komali Krishna (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

found in the course of search of another entity earlier while making the assessment u/s 153A of the Appellant which permits use of only incriminating material found in the course of search of the assessee u/s 132. Additions based on any other material or document in respect to a concluded ... therefore, have to be deleted. 5. The Appellant relies on the following decisions in support of the claim that existence of undisclosed income or incriminating material evidenced by a seized document is sine qua non for making additions in the assessment u/s 153A in respect of unabated assessments