← 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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1820/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1820/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

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.12,49,53,305/- in absence of any incriminating materials found in the course of search, hence 4 I.T.A. No. 1820 & 1854/Mum/2021 M/s Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. the entire assessment proceedings are vitiated ... 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 6 I.T.A. No. 1820 & 1854/Mum/2021 M/s Nickunj

DCIT (CC) 7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. La Trendz Fabrica Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Aggarwal [2015] 379 ITR 367 (Delhi) 17. Thus, it is submitted that statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act does not constitute incriminating material found as a result of search. In view of the addition can be made only qua the incriminating material found as a result

M/S Nickunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 15/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 15/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit Cen. Cir,- 2(4), M/S Nikunj Eximp R. No. 802, Pratistha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Sri Joravar Bhavan, Bhavan, Old Cgo Vs. 93, M. K. Road, Marine Lines, Annexe, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcn0991K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.10.2020, Passed Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A For Ay 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3(1)Section 68

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the assessment under section 153A of completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material for the year found during search and not restricting the proceedings only to the seized/material evidence found during the search. 2. The Learned Commissioner ... that the addition is beyond the scope of section 153A. However, nowhere, he has controverted this fact that this addition is based on certain incriminating material found during the course of search albeit he has held that vide interpretation of incriminating material has to be given. On merits

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Verma Vs Union of India (All) 230 ITR 855 and M.N. Rajaraman Vs. ACIT (ITAT, Chennai) 119 ITD 362 that if the department has incriminating material with regard to the undisclosed income, the disclosure made by the assessee cannot be considered to be voluntary. Further, in the cases

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Verma Vs Union of India (All) 230 ITR 855 and M.N. Rajaraman Vs. ACIT (ITAT, Chennai) 119 ITD 362 that if the department has incriminating material with regard to the undisclosed income, the disclosure made by the assessee cannot be considered to be voluntary. Further, in the cases

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

unexplained as unexplained cash credit u/s cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating 68 of the Act without appreciating that no incriminating material incriminating material was found in the course of search once was found in the course of search once the assessment had already attained ... Interest” 13.4 The Ld. Counsel Counsel of the assessee submitted that of the assessee submitted that additions are not based on the incriminating material found during the course of not based on the incriminating material found during the course of not based on the incriminating material found during the course

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

unexplained as unexplained cash credit u/s cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating 68 of the Act without appreciating that no incriminating material incriminating material was found in the course of search once was found in the course of search once the assessment had already attained ... Interest” 13.4 The Ld. Counsel Counsel of the assessee submitted that of the assessee submitted that additions are not based on the incriminating material found during the course of not based on the incriminating material found during the course of not based on the incriminating material found during the course

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1436/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

assessee is that the learned assessing officer should not have disturbed the valuation of the inventory for the reason that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search with respect to the above addition/adjustment the learned assessing officer could not have incurred the assessment for impugned assessment ... 13/7/2016 and therefore the impugned assessment year is concluded assessment year. This could have been adjusted only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search. It was also stated that with respect to the above adjustment in the closing inventory made by the learned assessing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1424/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

assessee is that the learned assessing officer should not have disturbed the valuation of the inventory for the reason that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search with respect to the above addition/adjustment the learned assessing officer could not have incurred the assessment for impugned assessment ... 13/7/2016 and therefore the impugned assessment year is concluded assessment year. This could have been adjusted only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search. It was also stated that with respect to the above adjustment in the closing inventory made by the learned assessing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1423/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

assessee is that the learned assessing officer should not have disturbed the valuation of the inventory for the reason that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search with respect to the above addition/adjustment the learned assessing officer could not have incurred the assessment for impugned assessment ... 13/7/2016 and therefore the impugned assessment year is concluded assessment year. This could have been adjusted only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search. It was also stated that with respect to the above adjustment in the closing inventory made by the learned assessing

ACIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Juventus Estate Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2379/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

assessee is that the learned assessing officer should not have disturbed the valuation of the inventory for the reason that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search with respect to the above addition/adjustment the learned assessing officer could not have incurred the assessment for impugned assessment ... 13/7/2016 and therefore the impugned assessment year is concluded assessment year. This could have been adjusted only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search. It was also stated that with respect to the above adjustment in the closing inventory made by the learned assessing

ACIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Juventus Estate Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2377/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

assessee is that the learned assessing officer should not have disturbed the valuation of the inventory for the reason that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search with respect to the above addition/adjustment the learned assessing officer could not have incurred the assessment for impugned assessment ... 13/7/2016 and therefore the impugned assessment year is concluded assessment year. This could have been adjusted only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search. It was also stated that with respect to the above adjustment in the closing inventory made by the learned assessing

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alpha Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1851/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized and found

DCIT Cent. Cir-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alpha Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1846/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized and found

Hgp Community Pvt.Ltd Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Cent. Cir-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1560/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized and found

Hgp Community Pvt.Ltd Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1559/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized and found

M/S. Hgp Community Pvt. Lt D Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy. C.I.T. .Cent. Cir.-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1558/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized and found

M/S Hgp Community Pvt. Ltd Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Cent. Cir -1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1557/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized and found

M/S Hgp Community Pvt. Ltd Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Cent. Cir -1(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1556/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

respect of the assessee no s respect of the assessee no settlement application was preferred. ettlement application was preferred. 3.1 In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee In view of incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized and found

Hawkins Cookers Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1012/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj (CIT DR)
Section 132(1)Section 68

origin of funds lies in M/s. M/s. Loha Ispaat Ltd in whose hands, the addition is already made and that there is no incriminating material found in the course of search. 11. We have heard the arguments of the rival parties and perused the materials on record. The case