← 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

Bakliwal Holding Pvt Ltd, West Bengal vs. Pr, CIT (Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 391/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Bakliwal Holding Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-30, 516, Rn Guha Road, New Delhi Kolkata, Park Street H.O., Kolkata, West Bengal – 700 016. Pan: Aabcb0328E Itas No.391 & 392/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bakliwal Holding Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Subash Agarwal & Associates, New Delhi. Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata– 700 069, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcb0328E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By Both The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

date of search. The law in this regard being that no addition over and above originally assessed income can be made unless there is incriminating material found for the said year during the course of search. It comes up from the order of the ld.PCIT that this objection

ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Bakliwal Holding Pvt Ltd, West Bengal

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

ITA 9102/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs Bakliwal Holding Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-30, Cabon No.G 20, New Delhi. Ground Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700 013. Pan: Aabcb0328E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 153C

share capital raised by the assessee and even in the satisfaction note, there was no specific reference to any 2 ITAs No.9101 & 9102/Del/2019 incriminating material. The ld. DR could not canvass before us anything on the basis of any material or facts to show that the opinion formed

ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Bakliwal Holding Pvt Ltd, West Bengal

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

ITA 9101/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs Bakliwal Holding Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-30, Cabon No.G 20, New Delhi. Ground Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700 013. Pan: Aabcb0328E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 153C

share capital raised by the assessee and even in the satisfaction note, there was no specific reference to any 2 ITAs No.9101 & 9102/Del/2019 incriminating material. The ld. DR could not canvass before us anything on the basis of any material or facts to show that the opinion formed

Kusum Lata, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 877/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land vide para 6 of the assessment order and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming ... that too without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. Kusum Lata vs. DCIT 5) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

Kusum Lata, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 876/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land vide para 6 of the assessment order and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming ... that too without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. Kusum Lata vs. DCIT 5) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

Kusum Lata, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 875/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land vide para 6 of the assessment order and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming ... that too without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. Kusum Lata vs. DCIT 5) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

Kusum Lata, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 874/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land vide para 6 of the assessment order and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming ... that too without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. Kusum Lata vs. DCIT 5) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

Kusum Lata, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 873/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 54FSection 69

unexplained investment in land vide para 6 of the assessment order and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming ... that too without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search. Kusum Lata vs. DCIT 5) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

Parag Motilal Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4220/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

contending that the assessment ought to have been done under section 153C and not under section 147 since the addition is based on alleged incriminating materials found during the course of search proceedings in the case of a third party and that the notice under section 148 does not bear

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1559/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

153C of the Act is called for as there are no disallowance u/s 153C of the Act is called for as there are no incriminating materials found during the search and the assess incriminating materials found during the search and the assess incriminating materials found during the search ... year abated assessment year, no addition could b no addition could be made without the aid of incriminating e made without the aid of incriminating material. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was no seized material material. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was no seized material material

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1055/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

erred in granting relief to the assessee stating that no disallowance u/s 153C of the Act is called for as there are no incriminating materials found during the search and the assessment has reached its finality and was not abated at the initiation proceedings u/s. 132(1) of the Income ... proceedings of section 153C of the Act in the case of non-abated assessment year, no addition could be made without the aid of incriminating material. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was no seized material qua the additions made by the Assessing Officer and therefore, accordingly he deleted

M/S Bhate & Raje Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Pune

ITA 1393/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144

authorities had carried-out sec.133A survey exercise in assessee’s case on 22.03.2018. It came across various alleged 3 ITA.No.1390 to 1393/PUN./2023 incriminating material inter alia, indicating that the bank account(s) of the foregoing 28 payees/sub-contractors had witnessed immediate cash withdrawals upon receipt of the impugned payments ... This; along with other incriminating material, made the learned departmental authorities to receive survey statement(s) of the assessee’s director Shri Jaideep Prasannakumar Raje as well as other authorised persons viz., S/Shri Pravin Divekar and Shishikant Naik etc. All of them failed to rebut the clinching facts emerging from

M/S Bhate & Raja Construction Co. Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1392/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144

authorities had carried-out sec.133A survey exercise in assessee’s case on 22.03.2018. It came across various alleged 3 ITA.No.1390 to 1393/PUN./2023 incriminating material inter alia, indicating that the bank account(s) of the foregoing 28 payees/sub-contractors had witnessed immediate cash withdrawals upon receipt of the impugned payments ... This; along with other incriminating material, made the learned departmental authorities to receive survey statement(s) of the assessee’s director Shri Jaideep Prasannakumar Raje as well as other authorised persons viz., S/Shri Pravin Divekar and Shishikant Naik etc. All of them failed to rebut the clinching facts emerging from

M/S Bhate & Raje Construction Co. Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1391/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144

authorities had carried-out sec.133A survey exercise in assessee’s case on 22.03.2018. It came across various alleged 3 ITA.No.1390 to 1393/PUN./2023 incriminating material inter alia, indicating that the bank account(s) of the foregoing 28 payees/sub-contractors had witnessed immediate cash withdrawals upon receipt of the impugned payments ... This; along with other incriminating material, made the learned departmental authorities to receive survey statement(s) of the assessee’s director Shri Jaideep Prasannakumar Raje as well as other authorised persons viz., S/Shri Pravin Divekar and Shishikant Naik etc. All of them failed to rebut the clinching facts emerging from

M/S Bhate & Raje Construction Co Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1390/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144

authorities had carried-out sec.133A survey exercise in assessee’s case on 22.03.2018. It came across various alleged 3 ITA.No.1390 to 1393/PUN./2023 incriminating material inter alia, indicating that the bank account(s) of the foregoing 28 payees/sub-contractors had witnessed immediate cash withdrawals upon receipt of the impugned payments ... This; along with other incriminating material, made the learned departmental authorities to receive survey statement(s) of the assessee’s director Shri Jaideep Prasannakumar Raje as well as other authorised persons viz., S/Shri Pravin Divekar and Shishikant Naik etc. All of them failed to rebut the clinching facts emerging from

Sanjay Gupta, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-05, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2770/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2769 & 2770/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri S. K Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 3Section 69A

Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the solitary issue in appeal is that the addition has been made without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act, was carried ... incriminating material whatsoever was found during the course of search in respect of assessment year under appeal. Nor there was any pending assessment for the impugned assessment year, still the AO made addition of Rs. 9,39,100/- u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order

Sanjay Gupta, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2769/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2769 & 2770/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri S. K Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 3Section 69A

Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the solitary issue in appeal is that the addition has been made without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act, was carried ... incriminating material whatsoever was found during the course of search in respect of assessment year under appeal. Nor there was any pending assessment for the impugned assessment year, still the AO made addition of Rs. 9,39,100/- u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

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

ITA 1563/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section 132(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 68

addition of Rs. 70,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, on account of cash deposits into the bank account and that too without any incriminating material found as a result of search and without proper appreciation of facts on record and by recording incorrect facts and findings, and making allegations ... High Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 [Del.]. The assessment so framed is not based on any incriminating material collected during the search. 7. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridaba

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

ITA 1562/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section 132(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 68

addition of Rs. 70,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, on account of cash deposits into the bank account and that too without any incriminating material found as a result of search and without proper appreciation of facts on record and by recording incorrect facts and findings, and making allegations ... High Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 [Del.]. The assessment so framed is not based on any incriminating material collected during the search. 7. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Puneet Mittal, Delhi

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

ITA 832/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 142ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

filed a detailed submissions before him. 9. In the above said appeal, the assessee has also filed ground and submissions with regard to no incriminating material found during the search before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue ... basis on Valuation Report which was obtained by the Investigation C.O. Nos.07 & 08/Del/2023 Wing, Delhi from the Govt. approved DVO without referring to any incriminating material for doing so. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the jurisdictional issue and has not adjudicated other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee