← 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

Mr. Umesh Deepak Khanvilkar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(1), Thane

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 993/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Mahisha H. GhindFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 were not called for as the Investigation wing/ Assessing Officer had not found any incriminating material pertaining to assessee for the year under appeal. 2. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred ... initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact & the law laid down by various judicial forums that since no incriminating material was found pertaining to the year under appeal the proceedings initiated were ab initio void & bad in law. 4. The appellant craves leave

Mr. Umesh Dipak Khanvilkar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(1), Thane

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 992/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Mahisha H. GhindFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 were not called for as the Investigation wing/ Assessing Officer had not found any incriminating material pertaining to assessee for the year under appeal. 2. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred ... initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact & the law laid down by various judicial forums that since no incriminating material was found pertaining to the year under appeal the proceedings initiated were ab initio void & bad in law. 4. The appellant craves leave

Mr. Unmesh Deepak Khanvilkar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 991/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Mahisha H. GhindFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 were not called for as the Investigation wing/ Assessing Officer had not found any incriminating material pertaining to assessee for the year under appeal. 2. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred ... initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact & the law laid down by various judicial forums that since no incriminating material was found pertaining to the year under appeal the proceedings initiated were ab initio void & bad in law. 4. The appellant craves leave

M/S. Ohri & Batra Showbiz Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

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

ITA 235/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 68

assessee and the assessment was completed u/s 153A. The addition was made in the hands of the assessee in different heads other than incriminating materials. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged both the legal and factual grounds before ... assessee first time challenged before the bench about the jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153A/143(3). The assessee challenged that there is no such any incriminating material for completion of the assessment by the ld. AO. But the same issue was not challenged specifically before the ld. CIT(A). Only

M/S. Ohri & Batra Showbiz Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

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

ITA 234/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 68

assessee and the assessment was completed u/s 153A. The addition was made in the hands of the assessee in different heads other than incriminating materials. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged both the legal and factual grounds before ... assessee first time challenged before the bench about the jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153A/143(3). The assessee challenged that there is no such any incriminating material for completion of the assessment by the ld. AO. But the same issue was not challenged specifically before the ld. CIT(A). Only

M/S Ohri & Batra Showbiz Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

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

ITA 233/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 68

assessee and the assessment was completed u/s 153A. The addition was made in the hands of the assessee in different heads other than incriminating materials. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged both the legal and factual grounds before ... assessee first time challenged before the bench about the jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153A/143(3). The assessee challenged that there is no such any incriminating material for completion of the assessment by the ld. AO. But the same issue was not challenged specifically before the ld. CIT(A). Only

M/S. Ohri & Batra Showbiz Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-II, Jalandhar

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

ITA 232/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 250(6)Section 68

assessee and the assessment was completed u/s 153A. The addition was made in the hands of the assessee in different heads other than incriminating materials. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged both the legal and factual grounds before ... assessee first time challenged before the bench about the jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153A/143(3). The assessee challenged that there is no such any incriminating material for completion of the assessment by the ld. AO. But the same issue was not challenged specifically before the ld. CIT(A). Only

DCIT Circle-05, New Delhi vs. Karina Airlines International Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

ITO Ward - 20(1), New Delhi vs. Prajyoti Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 9068/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 37Section 68

assessment order, we are unable to locate any observation made by the Assessing Officer indicating that the additions made were with reference to any incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132 of the Act. On a specific query being made, learned Departmental ... Representative failed to bring any material before us to demonstrate that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were on the basis of incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the judicial precedents, referred

Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 2423/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 68

proceedings initiated under Section 153A and assessment framed thereafter under Section 153A are bad in the eye of law in the absence of any incriminating material being found during the course of the search. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both ... terms of section 142A(6) of the Act. The assessee also pointed out that this addition is not supported by any incriminating material found during the course of search and since the assessment for AY 2008-09 is a concluded assessment, this addition could not be made in the search

Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 2422/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 68

proceedings initiated under Section 153A and assessment framed thereafter under Section 153A are bad in the eye of law in the absence of any incriminating material being found during the course of the search. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both ... terms of section 142A(6) of the Act. The assessee also pointed out that this addition is not supported by any incriminating material found during the course of search and since the assessment for AY 2008-09 is a concluded assessment, this addition could not be made in the search

Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 2421/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 68

proceedings initiated under Section 153A and assessment framed thereafter under Section 153A are bad in the eye of law in the absence of any incriminating material being found during the course of the search. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both ... terms of section 142A(6) of the Act. The assessee also pointed out that this addition is not supported by any incriminating material found during the course of search and since the assessment for AY 2008-09 is a concluded assessment, this addition could not be made in the search

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 153A

Therefore, it was rightly concluded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the addition made by the AO was not on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search but only on the basis of statement of assessee Shri Sanjeev Agrawal only. The learned counsel also pointed ... 353/380 (Ind-trib) Shri Sanjeev Agrawal Page 5 of 48 7. The learned counsel submitted that without making any reference to any incriminating material found during the course of search suggesting of earning of unaccounted income the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition by following the order

Roks It Supprot Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7102/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153CSection 271Section 69C

operation u/s 132 was conducted on 3 22.12.2014 at the premises of M/s G. D. Foods & Manufacturing (P) Ltd. & Others and in search some incriminating material has been seized relating to transactions between M/s Roks IT Support Services (P) Ltd. and M/s G. D. Foods & Manufacturing (P) Ltd. A satisfaction

M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3693/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

Manifestly, the JCIT, without any consideration of factual and legal position in proposed additions/disallowances and without contents of appraisal report before him or incriminating material collected in search etc. has buckled under statutory compulsion and proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval with caveats and disclaimers. This approach of the JCIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Varun Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 404/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271A

aforesaid provisions, if we examine relevant facts emerging on record, it can be seen that in course of search and seizure operation, no incriminating material was found, from which undisclosed income emanated. In statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act from a responsible person of the group, additional income ... others. It is a fact on record that additional income declared at the time of search and seizure operation was not based on any incriminating material indicating undisclosed income. There is nothing on record to operation. Even, there is no material on record to suggest that additional income offered

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. R.J. Corp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 403/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271A

aforesaid provisions, if we examine relevant facts emerging on record, it can be seen that in course of search and seizure operation, no incriminating material was found, from which undisclosed income emanated. In statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act from a responsible person of the group, additional income ... others. It is a fact on record that additional income declared at the time of search and seizure operation was not based on any incriminating material indicating undisclosed income. There is nothing on record to operation. Even, there is no material on record to suggest that additional income offered

Veritas (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1896/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1896/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) M/S. Veritas (India) Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) 701, Embassy Centre, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Floor, Air India Building 400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1654J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gaurav Kabra Revenue By: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2019 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A, R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. First Of All, We Will Deal With The Ground No. 2 & 3, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao To Have Made An Addition On Account Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Rs.1,93,43,532/- (On Account Of Share Application Money) & Rs.1,32,99,750/- (On Account Of Guarantee Commission) & Are Noted To Be Emanating From The Transfer Pricing Order (Tpo) Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 92Ca(3) Of The Act. According To The Ld. Ar, The Tpo Order Is Bad In Law Because The Assessee Has Filed The Original Return Of Income On 29.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

group cases (pursuant to search) had dismissed the ground of appeal of assessee i.e, ground no. (1) that no addition was warranted since no- incriminating material was discovered qua this year during search. Therefore, this ground of appeal of assessee stands dismissed. 5 A.Y. 2012-13 Veritas (India

Hasini Infra Constructions and Developers, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 9/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.9, 10 & 11/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Hasini Infra Constructions & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Developers, Income Tax, D.No.2-27-23, Gokul Street, Central Circle-1, Kakinada. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaifh 0895 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 24 & 25/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Hasini Infra Constructions Income Tax & Developers, Central Circle-1, D.No.2-27-23, Gokul Street, Rajahmundry. Kakinada. Pan: Aaifh 0895 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

seizure operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 28/03/2019 in the case of the assessee-firm at its registered premises wherein certain incriminating material was found and seized. Subsequently, the case was centralized by the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam vide order ... ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer has made the addition without proper jurisdiction since the addition made on the basis of incriminating material found in the third party premises but not in the premises of the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajahmundry vs. Hasini Infra Consrtuctions& Developers, Kakinada

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 25/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.9, 10 & 11/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Hasini Infra Constructions & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Developers, Income Tax, D.No.2-27-23, Gokul Street, Central Circle-1, Kakinada. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaifh 0895 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 24 & 25/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Hasini Infra Constructions Income Tax & Developers, Central Circle-1, D.No.2-27-23, Gokul Street, Rajahmundry. Kakinada. Pan: Aaifh 0895 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

seizure operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 28/03/2019 in the case of the assessee-firm at its registered premises wherein certain incriminating material was found and seized. Subsequently, the case was centralized by the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam vide order ... ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer has made the addition without proper jurisdiction since the addition made on the basis of incriminating material found in the third party premises but not in the premises of the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that