← 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

Shimla Hills Construction, Shimla vs. DCIT, Central Circle Shimla, Shimla

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 231/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 231/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shimla Hills Construction, The Dcit, Village Kot, Po-Junga, Vs Central Circle, Tehsil & Distt. Shimla. Shimla. "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Absfs7322L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Besar Singh Verma, Advocate & Shri Aman Singhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Besar Singh Verma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

additional ground of appeal wherein he has pleaded that assessment order has been passed u/s 153A but ld. AO has not referred any incriminating material in the assessment order, therefore, additions are not sustainable in view of latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar ... view that they are the items of regular assessment. None of the addition has been made on the A.Y.2013-14 4 strength of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The AO has visualized the return of income and its accounts as if he was passing a regular assessment

Kuldeep Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Kuldeep Gupta Vs Dcit 80/1, Saraswati Soni Marg, Central Circle Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan-Brgpg6310R Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Gupta Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(Appeals), Nodia-3/10047/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.03.2024 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Based On The Documents Found During The Course Of Search Carried Out In The Case Of Shri Krishna Sharma & Smt. Sheetal Sharma On 02.02.2022, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act, Since As Per Seized Documents Titled As Page 6 & 7 Of Annexure A-2, It Is Found That Assessee Has Purchased Property Alongwith His Brother, Shri Gaurav Gupta For Which Payments Of Inr 15 Lakhs Was Made Though Cheque & Inr 12.50 Lakhs Was Paid In Cash. Accordingly, Ao Passed The Reassessment Order Dated 06.03.2024 U/S 147 By Making Addition Of Inr 6.25 Lakhs Being Assessee’S Share Of 50% In The Cash Payment As Undisclosed Investment U/S 69B R.W.S. 115Bb Of The Act & The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 9,74,850/-.

Section 147Section 250Section 69B

loose sheet of paper which is nothing but ‘dumb document’. Further submitted that there is no mentioning of ‘cash’ payment and the alleged incriminating material being a ‘dumb document’ which was not corroborated with any of the statement or evidence. Further submitted that though the loose paper was not found