← 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

Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply - Umc) (J/V), Ulhasnagar vs. DCIT Central Circle -4, Thane

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

ITA 3021/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

search action was conducted upon the Konark Group on 23.01.2018, which was much after the date of order of ITSC and since further incriminating material had come to light that the income for AY 2013-14 had escaped assessment, the AO was well within his powers to initiate proceedings

Vidhya Devi, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8198/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Vidhya Devi Dcit C/O M/S. Rra Tax India, D- Vs Central Circle 28, South Extension, Part-I, Noida New Delhi Pan No.Asbpd0089B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per Saktijit Dey,Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Arising Out Of Order Dated 23.10.2018 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4 (For Short “Cit(A)”), Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Both On Jurisdictional Issue As Well As On Merits, However, At The Very Outset We Proceed To Decide The Jurisdictional Issue Raised In Ground No.1, As It Goes To The Root Of The Matter.

Section 132Section 153Section 153C

assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the Act and has further challenged the additions on the ground that they are not based on any incriminating material. 4. Briefly, the facts are, based on a search and seizure operation conducted u/s. 132 of the Act in case of third parties proceeding ... Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the Act is invalid as the AO has not found any incriminating material belonging to the assessee. Drawing our attention to the satisfaction note, he submitted, the only seized document referred therein is annexure