← 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

Pankaj K Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 566/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the impugned assessment u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, thereby making the assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction.” Since the above said legal issue goes ... provisions of sec 153A of the Act. It is the submission of the assessee that the search officials did not unearth any incriminating material warranting addition of capital gains and estimated commission expenses. It was submitted that the capital gains have been declared by these assessees in the original returns

DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj K Shah HUF, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1614/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the impugned assessment u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, thereby making the assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction.” Since the above said legal issue goes ... provisions of sec 153A of the Act. It is the submission of the assessee that the search officials did not unearth any incriminating material warranting addition of capital gains and estimated commission expenses. It was submitted that the capital gains have been declared by these assessees in the original returns

Dy CIT, CC, 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S PAN India Network Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by Revenue and assessee for A

ITA 1715/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Seldamane (DR)
Section 34(1)

been appointed as Liquidator u/s. 34(1) of the Code. Neither the assessee nor the Revenue have filed revised Form No.36 incriminating material impleading the Liquidator. The assessee was required to file revised Form No.36 duly verified by the Liquidator. The Revenue was required to file revised Form No.36 impleading

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 29/03/2016 for A.Y.2009-10. Hence, it could be safely concluded that there was no incriminating material available with the ld. AO while framing the said search assessment on 29/03/2016 for A.Y.2009-10. Hence, the ld. AO could not have looked into ... that the addition not made in the assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of incriminating material, is not sustainable. Taking this aspect into consideration, the Ground of Appeal of the Assessee is not acceptable. Fifth Issue Vide Ground No.5

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1554/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 153C

appreciating the fact that in the case of assessments which do abate, the addition / disallowances can solely be made on the basis of only incriminating materials which admittedly, in the case of appellant, is not available. 3.2. That the CIT(A) erred in deciding Alternate Grounds {Ground ... assessee had challenged the validity of assessment framed u/s.153C of the Act for A.Y.2009-10 by making certain disallowances and additions without the existence of incriminating material for the year under consideration received from the Assessing Officer of the searched person. 3.1. We find that assessee company is engaged

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1551/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 153C

appreciating the fact that in the case of assessments which do abate, the addition / disallowances can solely be made on the basis of only incriminating materials which admittedly, in the case of appellant, is not available. 3.2. That the CIT(A) erred in deciding Alternate Grounds {Ground ... assessee had challenged the validity of assessment framed u/s.153C of the Act for A.Y.2009-10 by making certain disallowances and additions without the existence of incriminating material for the year under consideration received from the Assessing Officer of the searched person. 3.1. We find that assessee company is engaged

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1023/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 153C

appreciating the fact that in the case of assessments which do abate, the addition / disallowances can solely be made on the basis of only incriminating materials which admittedly, in the case of appellant, is not available. 3.2. That the CIT(A) erred in deciding Alternate Grounds {Ground ... assessee had challenged the validity of assessment framed u/s.153C of the Act for A.Y.2009-10 by making certain disallowances and additions without the existence of incriminating material for the year under consideration received from the Assessing Officer of the searched person. 3.1. We find that assessee company is engaged

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1021/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 153C

appreciating the fact that in the case of assessments which do abate, the addition / disallowances can solely be made on the basis of only incriminating materials which admittedly, in the case of appellant, is not available. 3.2. That the CIT(A) erred in deciding Alternate Grounds {Ground ... assessee had challenged the validity of assessment framed u/s.153C of the Act for A.Y.2009-10 by making certain disallowances and additions without the existence of incriminating material for the year under consideration received from the Assessing Officer of the searched person. 3.1. We find that assessee company is engaged

DCIT CC -7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dewal Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2268/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 68

153C cannot be done solely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act by ignoring the fact that incriminating material in the case of the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case ... deleted the addition holding that there was nothing on record to hold a view that the impugned addition was made out of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search. The relevant operative portion of the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced below:- “6.2.10.1 find that

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

grounds as follows:- “Grounds on the learned Assessing Officer has not assumed proper jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. The learned Assessing Officer failed appreciate that the a) mandatory requirements for assuming jurisdiction under section 153A ... learned Assessing Officer is not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search on the facts and circumstances of the case. e) The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in issuing notice under section 153A

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

grounds as follows:- “Grounds on the learned Assessing Officer has not assumed proper jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. The learned Assessing Officer failed appreciate that the a) mandatory requirements for assuming jurisdiction under section 153A ... learned Assessing Officer is not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search on the facts and circumstances of the case. e) The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in issuing notice under section 153A

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

grounds as follows:- “Grounds on the learned Assessing Officer has not assumed proper jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. The learned Assessing Officer failed appreciate that the a) mandatory requirements for assuming jurisdiction under section 153A ... learned Assessing Officer is not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search on the facts and circumstances of the case. e) The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in issuing notice under section 153A

Jt CIT (OSD) Central Circle1(4), Mumbai vs. Parel Graphic Print Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 880/M/2022 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 880/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Jt. Commissioner Of Income Podar Media Magazine & Tax Graphics Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp9649K Jt. Commissioner Of Income Parel Graphic Prints Pvt Tax Limited (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcp2425D Assessee By : Ms. Nishitamandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nimesh Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2022

For Appellant: Ms. NishitaMandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

learned CIT (A) held that he does not agree with the contention of the assessee that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search. However, on the merits of the case, he held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench ... order has dismissed ground no.1,2,3,4,6 and 7 of the appeal of the assessee holding that there is an incriminating material found during the course of search. Ld. AR submitted that there is no incriminating material found during search. Therefore, the issue decided against the appellant

Joint CIT (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Media Magazine & Graphics Prints Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 880/M/2022 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 874/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Jt. Commissioner Of Income Podar Media Magazine & Tax Graphics Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp9649K Jt. Commissioner Of Income Parel Graphic Prints Pvt Tax Limited (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcp2425D Assessee By : Ms. Nishitamandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nimesh Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2022

For Appellant: Ms. NishitaMandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

learned CIT (A) held that he does not agree with the contention of the assessee that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search. However, on the merits of the case, he held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench ... order has dismissed ground no.1,2,3,4,6 and 7 of the appeal of the assessee holding that there is an incriminating material found during the course of search. Ld. AR submitted that there is no incriminating material found during search. Therefore, the issue decided against the appellant

M/S. Muktamani Distributors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir -8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2121/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 153ASection 2Section 250(6)

Muktamani Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 132 of the Act and there is no nexus between the additions made to the returned income to that of incriminating material found/seized pursuant to search action”. According to the written submissions given by the assessee, due to the oversight the assessee had withdrawn this ground

M/S. Bhairav Tube (India ), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 646/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S, Bhairav Tube (India) Ito Wd19(1)(2) Shop No. 10,Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 6Th Khotwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 004 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aawft1198E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ujjwal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjwal Chavan SR AR
Section 114Section 143Section 147Section 148

well settled law that when authority is relying on the statement of entry providers they are the approvals/witnesses of the department shah incriminating materials and evidences must be provided to the assessee for repulate with opportunity to cross examine of entry provider by assessee failing which additionally cannot be sustained ... materials in respect of purchases effected from 14 parties whereas Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any Concrete, Cogent, corroborative and incriminating materials on record to discard the details submitted to him, but merely relying on the information‟s of other parties made additions based merely on suspicion considered

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Shri Saurabh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1435/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1435/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. Saurabh Mittal A-19, House No.A-01, A-32, Income Tax, Centre- Westend, New Delhi-110 021 Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Room No. 1925, 19Th Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.334 & 333/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Shri. Saurabh Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Mittal Income Tax, Centre-Circle- Room No.543, 5Th Floor, बिधम/ 6(4) Ayankar Bhavan, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. M.K.Road, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 3Section 69A

file found in the laptop of one Shri Ashok Sharma, group CFO of Indiabulls Group. The addition has been made on the basis of incriminating material seized from Indiabulls group, which belonged to the appellant. 15 I.T.A. No. 1435/Mum/2022 and Others Shri Saurabh Mittal Therefore, notice issued u/s 153C ... satisfaction note. Admittedly, assessment for AY 2014-15 stood completed and was not pending at the time of assessment. Therefore, without any reference of incriminating material on the basis of which addition has been made cannot be held to be based on any incriminating material. Accordingly, the entire addition deserves

DCIT- CC- 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Divya Sameer Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1428/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1428/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ Smt. Divya Sameer Tax, Gehlaut Vs. Central Circle 6(4), 17Th Floor, Tower 1, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Indianbulls Finance Air India Building, Centre, Senapati Bapat Nariman Point, Marg, Elphinstone Mumbai-400021 Road, Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajbpg2722R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri .Om Kandalkar Revenue By: Shri. T Sankar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri .Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri. T Sankar (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 54

erred in holding that the additions / disallowances made in the assessment order is not sustainable as they are without reference to any incriminating material found during the search, without appreciating that the department has filed an SLP against the decision of the Hon 'ble High Court of Bombay ... Assessing officer erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 54 of the Income tax Act despite the fact that during the course of search no incriminating material or evidence was found relating to the issue of deduction u/s 54 and assessment for the assessment year under consideration has attained finality

Shri Amin Badruddin Keshwani, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1125/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 147Section 234BSection 234D

facts in not appreciating that the assessment re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act was invalid and bad in law, as there was no incriminating material and ought not to have reopened for estimating a higher income. 2. The Learned C1T(A) erred in law and in facts

M/S. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1823/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1823, 1819 & 1821/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs.5,88,89,512/- in absence of any incriminating materials found in the course of search, hence the entire assessment proceedings are vitiated and bad in law based on settled judicial pronouncements. 2. Whether ... course of search which show that these purchases are bogus. AO has mainly relied on outside information and which cannot be treated as incriminating material found during the course of search and AY 2014-15 being the non-abated year. He further submitted that here in this case there