← 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

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4385/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

panchnamas prepared in the name of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee challenged that no name of the assessee. , the assessee challenged that no incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found ... case of the assessee the case of the assessee. The appeals have challenged . The appeals have challenged only on the ground that no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions made, hence no addition

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4384/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

panchnamas prepared in the name of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee challenged that no name of the assessee. , the assessee challenged that no incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found ... case of the assessee the case of the assessee. The appeals have challenged . The appeals have challenged only on the ground that no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions made, hence no addition

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4383/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

panchnamas prepared in the name of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee challenged that no name of the assessee. , the assessee challenged that no incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found ... case of the assessee the case of the assessee. The appeals have challenged . The appeals have challenged only on the ground that no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions made, hence no addition

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4382/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

panchnamas prepared in the name of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee challenged that no name of the assessee. , the assessee challenged that no incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found ... case of the assessee the case of the assessee. The appeals have challenged . The appeals have challenged only on the ground that no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions made, hence no addition

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4381/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

panchnamas prepared in the name of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee challenged that no name of the assessee. , the assessee challenged that no incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee incriminating material was found ... case of the assessee the case of the assessee. The appeals have challenged . The appeals have challenged only on the ground that no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions no incriminating material was found qua the additions made, hence no addition

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

called stating that no disallowance us 153C of the Act is called for as there are no incriminating for as there are no incriminating materials found during materials found during the search and the assessment has reached its finality the search and the assessment has reached its finality the search ... Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (ABMCPL) i.e. a group concern , i.e. a group concern , on 16th October 2013 October 2013, certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

called stating that no disallowance us 153C of the Act is called for as there are no incriminating for as there are no incriminating materials found during materials found during the search and the assessment has reached its finality the search and the assessment has reached its finality the search ... Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (ABMCPL) i.e. a group concern , i.e. a group concern , on 16th October 2013 October 2013, certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

called stating that no disallowance us 153C of the Act is called for as there are no incriminating for as there are no incriminating materials found during materials found during the search and the assessment has reached its finality the search and the assessment has reached its finality the search ... Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (ABMCPL) i.e. a group concern , i.e. a group concern , on 16th October 2013 October 2013, certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized

Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9726/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has failed to consider that no incriminating material have been found during the course of search and the assessment have already been completed u/s 153A/ 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and, therefore

Naftogaz Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7494/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DRFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153A

153A on " the basis of the search material found in the course of search and additions were to be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Since no incriminating material found, the additions made outside the search material! as such the order passed

Capacite Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-A-47, Mumbai

In the result the appeal I

ITA 2358/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm 1. I.T.A. No. 2358/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. I.T.A. No. 2359/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 40A(2)(a)

material placed on record. Admittedly the addition in hand which has been made by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner, dehors the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 or section 132A of the Act and the assessment of the assessee is unabated assessment, therefore

Pratap Singh Yadav, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7 Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1898/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17 Prtatap Singh Yadav, Versus Dcit, Central Circle 7, 510, Sector 31-32A, Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aahpy8387M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153C

facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. Pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted in respect of a third party, certain incriminating materials belonging to the assessee were found. Consequent thereupon, proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated on the assessee. In response to notice issued

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Som Nath Aggarwal, New Delhi

Accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4058/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Som Nath Aggarwal Central Circle – 19 Vs D-603, Jhule Lal New Delhi Apartments, Road No.44, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan No.Aakpa9546M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132ASection 153Section 153A

Delhi vs. Meeta Gutgutia 390 ITR 496 (Del) and in holding that completed assessment could not be interfered by the AO without incriminating material. On the contrary, for making the assessment u/s 153 A of the Act, 1961, the Act does not stipulates any such conditionality on A.O. 2) Whether ... other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section

Dy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat vs. M/S. Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Surat

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

deleted the addition by taking a view that such addition is without any evidence or incriminating material. The addition is made on approximate figure. No such query regarding the rental expenses was raised during the statement of partner recorded at the time of survey. No addition in other assessment years ... deleted the addition by taking similar view as took with regard to salary and rent expenses that addition is made without any incriminating material or no such addition in other years were made. 18. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made

M/S. Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

deleted the addition by taking a view that such addition is without any evidence or incriminating material. The addition is made on approximate figure. No such query regarding the rental expenses was raised during the statement of partner recorded at the time of survey. No addition in other assessment years ... deleted the addition by taking similar view as took with regard to salary and rent expenses that addition is made without any incriminating material or no such addition in other years were made. 18. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made

Jt CIT(OSD)-Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Vainavin Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 878/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Is Covered By Series Of Decision In The Group Case Of The Assessee & In Support, Decision Of Itat In The Case Of Jcit(Osd) Vs. Nabendu Engineering Pvt. Ltd Ita No. 875/Mum/2022 Dated 12.12.2022 Wherein, Exactly Similar Grounds Were Raised Except In Variations In Figures Of Share Application Money. In This Case Also The Assessee Has Filed Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Raising Legal Issue Contending That Before The Ld Cit (A) The Assessee Has Raised These Legal Grounds That The Addition Made By The Ao Are Not Based On Any Incriminating Material Or Evidence Found During The Course Of Search Relating To The Additions Made By The Ao & Is Beyond The Scope Of Section 153C Of The Act. The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 68

before the ld CIT (A) the assessee has raised these legal grounds that the addition made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material or evidence found during the course of search relating to the additions made by the AO and is beyond the scope of section 153C ... assessee has raised various legal grounds challenging that addition in respect of share application money was not based on any incriminating material or documents found during the course of search and has no co- relation with the satisfaction note or material referred therein. Thus, the entire addition is without

DCIT, CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA NO

ITA 611/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Koshor Dule, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

would indicate that the assessment is restricted which would indicate that the assessment is restricted which would indicate that the assessment is restricted to incriminating material or the basis of the assessment to incriminating material or the basis of the assessment to incriminating material or the basis of the assessment ... deleted the addition on the ground that there was no incriminatin ground that there was no incriminating material qua the addition g material qua the addition made and the assessment being in the category of the made and the assessment being in the category of the made and the assessment

DCIT, CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA NO

ITA 610/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Koshor Dule, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

would indicate that the assessment is restricted which would indicate that the assessment is restricted which would indicate that the assessment is restricted to incriminating material or the basis of the assessment to incriminating material or the basis of the assessment to incriminating material or the basis of the assessment ... deleted the addition on the ground that there was no incriminatin ground that there was no incriminating material qua the addition g material qua the addition made and the assessment being in the category of the made and the assessment being in the category of the made and the assessment

Leena K. Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 151/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

well as disallowance of HRA amounting to INR 2,45,472/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contention of the Appellant that there was no incriminating material and confirmed the addition of INR 5,06,000/- under Section 68 of the Act observing that the invoices were in the name ... case of Revenue that any cash or jewellery belonging to the Appellant was found during the course of search. The incriminating material was only the aforesaid two invoices. There is nothing on record to suggest that the jewellery was actually gifted to the Appellant or that the Appellant had sold

Asstt. CIT, Central Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amish A Modi, Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed and at the same time grounds No

ITA 3243/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

erred in confirming the assessment passed u/s 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961 which was passed (a)in the absence of any incriminating material (b) Without having jurisdiction to the assessing officer as no opportunity of being heard u/s 127 of the act was granted to the appellant