“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

Surendra Garg HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 300/MUM/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-23

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

contention of the Revenue was that the Assessing Officer was competent to assess/reassess the total income of the Assessee taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search proceedings as well as other material available with the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf ... Assessee that in case of completed/unabated assessments, the Assessing Officer could only consider incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and was precluded from considering any other material derived from any other source. After examining the scheme of Section 153A of the Act and its legislative history

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5721/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

credits in the bank accounts of the clients of the assessee have been added to the total income of the assessee despite no incriminating material was found during the course of search and since there is double addition of the same credits in the hands of the assessee as well ... provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not considering search and seizure material for the bases of addition as incrimination material. ITA No.5719 to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5719/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Maithan Ceramic Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1944/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 269S

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

view of several judicial pronouncements that there cannot be penalty on estimated addition, it was submitted penalty was not leviable. There was no incriminating material to show any concealment and therefore, penalty could not be levied in such circumstances. The ld. AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

income in the case of the assessee. It was submitted that the basic work of the competent authority was to check whether the incriminating material which is related to the escapement of income from taxation was placed in the file or not and on this ground, there was no lapse

Shamkant Keshav Kotkar (Prop. Nandan Builders), Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 26Section 263Section 40

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating that, AY 2017-18 is an "unabated" year, and there is no incriminating material found during search proceedings for A.Y.2017- 18. Hence, learned AO could not have assumed jurisdiction with respect other material & thereby, no objection to non-enquiry ... submitted that the order u/s.263 is bad in law. Ld.AR further submitted that since the assessment order was passed u/s.153A and there was no incriminating material showing cash loans taken by assessee through Sachin Nahar, hence, no addition could have been made. Ld.AR relied on the decision

Preeti Pankaj Patel, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3249/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Preeti Pankaj Patel Acit,Central Circle -2, Thane Flat No. 1401, 14Th Floor, D Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagale Vs Palm Beach Residency, Navi Mumbai, Industrial Estate, Thane – Thane – 400706. 400604. [Pan: Aujpp1319G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

submission stated that addition was made on the basis of bank account which is forming part of regular books of account. There is no incriminating material. Bank statement was furnished during assessment proceeding. The assessee submits that she is strongly objected about the finding of ld. AO that no explanation ... forming part of regular books of account and was considered while filing return of income. The bank account cannot be treated as incriminating material. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee held that search action conducted on 08.08.2019, assessment year under consideration is assessment year

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

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

ensuing paragraphs. 2. There was a search conducted at the office of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. Ltd. on 16.10.2013 and certain incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the course of search. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice u/s. 153C in response to which

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

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

Manohar Filaments Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT, Central-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2645/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Manohar & Filaments Pvt. `Vs. Pcit, (Central)-3, Delhi Ltd, B-59, G. T. Karnal Road, Industrial, Area, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacm1116E Appellant Respondent

Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

u/s.153C is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when there was no incriminating materials were found in the course of search in respect of an issue then no addition can be made while completing assessment u/s.153A ... search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out on 18.10.2019 at Alankit Group of companies. During the search & seizure proceedings, documents/ incriminating materials related to the assessee were found. Hence, notice u/s.153C of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 26.02.2021 and assessment proceedings were completed

Nitin Johari, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, the issues on the merits as raised vide ground nos

ITA 1530/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Nitin Johari, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3, 2Nd A-15, Floor, Sadhna New Delhi Enclave, South Delhi, New Delhi – 110 017 Pan No. Aajpj4136D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

facts as well as in law in not annulling the assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) in spite of the fact that no incriminating material was found for the year under consideration during the course of the search upon the appellant and no assessment proceedings were pending ... term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s Anukaran Commercial Enterprises Ltd. Made by the AO in spite of the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search upon the appellant pertaining to the impugned addition. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred

Income Tax Office, Ludhiana vs. Deepak Kumar, Ludhiana

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 721/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: it is finally disposed off."

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 251Section 69

made in the reopened assessment of the assessee. It was, however, contended by the assessee that no incriminating material was found by the department, in so far, as the purchase of 500 sq. yard of plot by the assessee from M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., at the rate

Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5684/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 69

case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material/ evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice ... dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section

Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5683/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3955/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

have been done, since the return income of that year was accepted by the revenue under scrutiny assessment proceedings and no new fact or incriminating material was found during the search. 8.10 A chart showing, returned income of the assessee, credit in bank account, commissioned earned, net profit, addition made ... income was accepted, so no estimation should be done, cannot be accepted, as this would lead to further verification of facts, that whether any incriminating material was surfaced during the search or not, while the legal grounds are not pressed by the ld. AR, thus are rendered being dismissed

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3954/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3953/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3952/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)