“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

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkr Housing Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2135/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

erred in upholding the initiation of legally untenable proceedings u/s 153A and in issuing legally untenable Notice u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating material or unexplained asset found during search ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 action at 7, Thakkers, Near Nehru Garden, Nashik 422001 Therefore, it is prayed to annul ... namely Kokani group of companies during the course of search and seizure proceedings in their hands u/s 132(4) of the Act. Admittedly, no incriminating material suggesting the payment of on-money consideration to the vendors of the subject land was found as result of search and seizure action

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apana Ghar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2134/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apna Ghar Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2133/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

ACIT 2(3) 1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2132/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Housing Developement Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2131/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

Dlh Kamla Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1373/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit Cen. Cir. -3(4), Dlh Kamla Developers 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti बनाम/ Vimal, P. M. Road, Vile Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Parle East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 057 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahfd0790K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/153A For Ay 2013-14 & Section 143(3) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

directed to be deleted. 15 I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 DLH Kamla Developers 14. In so far as the legal ground that there is no incriminating material, nothing has been submitted before us that the addition which have been made are not based on incriminating material. On the contrary, there ... detail discussion, which had led to incriminating material alongwith the statement that assessee had taken accommodation entry and also admitted during the search, therefore sans any rebuttal to these findings, this ground is rejected. Accordingly, findings of Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. 15. In the net result, the appeal filed

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)Section 801ASection 80I

assessment made under section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that in the absence of any incriminating material found against the assessee as a result of search and seizure operation, no addition/disallowance which 6 M/s. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd., is subject matter ... After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that in the course of search operation carried out on Gammon India Ltd., incriminating material and other documents were found which revealed that the assessee has not developed the infrastructure facility (BOT Project) for which it has claimed deduction

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

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

ITA 6122/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit Central Circle-8(3), 72-7, Kalpatatru Residency 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower B, Sion Koliwada Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Sion, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

ground No. 5 to 7 the Regarding ground No. 5 to 7 the Ld. counsel submitted that additions made are not based on any incriminating material found additions made are not based on any incriminating material found additions made are not based on any incriminating material found or seized during ... search than no proceedings are pending as on the date of the search than no addition can be made without basis of incriminating material. addition can be made without basis of incriminating material. addition can be made without basis of incriminating material. The Ld. counsel submitted that time limit

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

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

ITA 6121/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Shri Radhey Comsec Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand dismissed

ITA 3968/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Radhey Comsec Pvt. Vs. Cit(A)-21 Ltd., 315, Luxuria Room No. 8, 3 Rd Floor, Business Hub, Near V.R. B-Wing, Mittal Court, Mall, Dumad Road, Nariman Point, Surat – 395007 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aajcs7720B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

mere human error Further merely rebutting the case without any substantial documentary evidence will not support the case of the assessee when incriminating material has been found. The revenue is well aware of the fact that gains and losses are transferred from one account to another under the guise

Mrs. Jyoti R. Raut, New Panvel vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 371/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Assessing Officer make addition in assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. Apart from this, Appellant has also challenged the said disallowance on merits. 3. We would first take up appeal ... before CIT(A) the Appellant, inter alia, contended that no additions could be made in the hands of the Appellant in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search. The CIT(A) dismissed the aforesaid contention and confirmed the addition on merits. 7. Being aggrieved

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

search conducted on 09.10.2014 that the appellant had received unsecured loans from the 3 lender companies. There is nothing on record to suggest any incriminating material found to substantiate the claim of the Ld. Assessing Officer that the 3 lender companies are not creditworthy L Case laws relied upon

Rizwan Rehhan Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2816/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhrizwan Rehan Malik Vs. Ito – 26(2)(5) 18, Friends Housing Mumbai. Society, Lbs Marg, Sakinaka, Mumbai –400072 Pan/Gir No. : Amqpm7948D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 38, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 R.W.S 263 & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

books of accounts of the appellant Rizwan Rehan Malik., Mumbai. are not rejected by the Learned AO. Also, there are no undisclosed cash or incriminating material or documents found and no additional evidence or information gathered by the Learned AO in the assessment proceeding to treat the purchases as bogus

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R

Section 132Section 153A

dismissed. 4. Ground Nos.2.1 to 4.1 are reproduced as under:- 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, in the absence of seizure of any incriminating material in the search, the invocation of jurisdiction u/s.153A of the Act, is bad in law and consequently, the impugned assessment framed requires ... this assessment year. Further, it was submitted that the impugned addition made by AO in this assessment year is not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. According to the Ld. A.R., in the absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated

Apurva Jagdish Nanvati, Mumbai vs. JCIT-RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2421/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleapurva Jagdish Nanavati V. Jcit – Range – 10(3) Arunodaya Bungalow, Sarojini Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaapn4583F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S.RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

assessee was one of the individual who has borrowed in cash Rs.10,00,000/ In this regard, it is submitted that based on the incriminating material found from the third party M/s Evergreen Enterprises during search cannot be used against the assessee unless corroborated by other evidence. In fact presumption

DCIT Cent .Cir-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1710/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 37

Assessee’s cross objections) “The Ld. CiT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by Assessing officer despite the fact that there was no incriminating material found during the search proceedings. That the initiation of assessment proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the subsequent assessment order

Datalink Informatics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 09, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 571/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in no appreciating the fact that there was no "incriminating material" being found during the course of search based on which additions/disallowances were made u'ider the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C ... pending on the date of recording of Satisfaction Note and as such the additions / disallowances would be made only on the basis of "Incriminating Material" found during the course of search. 2.3. The Learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO did not have jurisdiction

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

assessing officer also referred to survey u/s 133A of the income tax act and a statement of managing director Mr Ashwin Khemka where certain incriminating material was found including hard disk and loose papers. Statement of the various employees was also recorded u/s 131 of the act. The employees have

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C