← 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

Forsan Healthcare P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 2861/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargforsan Healthcare P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit S-231, 1St Floor, Greater Central Circle – 03 Kailash, Part- Ii, Delhi New Delhi-110 048 Pan No. Aaacf 7089 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Revenue By Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.10.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Forsan Healthcare P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153D

upholding the validity of notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though there is no case of discovery of any incriminating material during the course of search u/s 132 of the Income Tax act, 1961. Forsan Healthcare P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 3 2.2 That this being ... case of unabated assessment and the scope of assessment u/s 153A being strictly limited to incriminating material, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A dehors any incriminating material is illegal and void- ab-initio. 2.3 That the excel sheet found from the computer of the employee being a rough, unauthenticated

Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 220/VIZ/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

excess sale consideration received in cash for sale of plots of Rs.1,60,41,,171/- worked out on the basis of the stated incriminating material found and 8 I.T.A. No.218-220/Viz/2022 & 176-177/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 to 2020-21 Dollars Colony Phaze—1, Vijayawada seized was treated as undisclosed income ... received on money and the AO also failed to examine the purchasers of the plots. Therefore, he pleaded that in the absence of any incriminating material regarding on money transaction, the AO is not justified to make addition in the hands of assessee AOP and the Ld.CIT(A) also without

Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 219/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

excess sale consideration received in cash for sale of plots of Rs.1,60,41,,171/- worked out on the basis of the stated incriminating material found and 8 I.T.A. No.218-220/Viz/2022 & 176-177/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 to 2020-21 Dollars Colony Phaze—1, Vijayawada seized was treated as undisclosed income ... received on money and the AO also failed to examine the purchasers of the plots. Therefore, he pleaded that in the absence of any incriminating material regarding on money transaction, the AO is not justified to make addition in the hands of assessee AOP and the Ld.CIT(A) also without

Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 218/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

excess sale consideration received in cash for sale of plots of Rs.1,60,41,,171/- worked out on the basis of the stated incriminating material found and 8 I.T.A. No.218-220/Viz/2022 & 176-177/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 to 2020-21 Dollars Colony Phaze—1, Vijayawada seized was treated as undisclosed income ... received on money and the AO also failed to examine the purchasers of the plots. Therefore, he pleaded that in the absence of any incriminating material regarding on money transaction, the AO is not justified to make addition in the hands of assessee AOP and the Ld.CIT(A) also without

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry vs. Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 177/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

excess sale consideration received in cash for sale of plots of Rs.1,60,41,,171/- worked out on the basis of the stated incriminating material found and 8 I.T.A. No.218-220/Viz/2022 & 176-177/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 to 2020-21 Dollars Colony Phaze—1, Vijayawada seized was treated as undisclosed income ... received on money and the AO also failed to examine the purchasers of the plots. Therefore, he pleaded that in the absence of any incriminating material regarding on money transaction, the AO is not justified to make addition in the hands of assessee AOP and the Ld.CIT(A) also without

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centrl Circle-2, Rajahmundry vs. Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 176/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

excess sale consideration received in cash for sale of plots of Rs.1,60,41,,171/- worked out on the basis of the stated incriminating material found and 8 I.T.A. No.218-220/Viz/2022 & 176-177/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 to 2020-21 Dollars Colony Phaze—1, Vijayawada seized was treated as undisclosed income ... received on money and the AO also failed to examine the purchasers of the plots. Therefore, he pleaded that in the absence of any incriminating material regarding on money transaction, the AO is not justified to make addition in the hands of assessee AOP and the Ld.CIT(A) also without