← 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

Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1466/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

confirming the AO's action of making the estimation of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 22,34,11,367/- despite the fact that no incriminating material relating to these bogus purchases were found during the course of search and no assessment or reassessment was pending as on the date ... well as the issue of making addition M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 without having any incriminating material has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A) in his order as under:- “In ground Nos. 3 to 7 of the appeal, the assessee

Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1465/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

confirming the AO's action of making the estimation of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 22,34,11,367/- despite the fact that no incriminating material relating to these bogus purchases were found during the course of search and no assessment or reassessment was pending as on the date ... well as the issue of making addition M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 without having any incriminating material has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A) in his order as under:- “In ground Nos. 3 to 7 of the appeal, the assessee

DCIT - CC 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1355/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

confirming the AO's action of making the estimation of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 22,34,11,367/- despite the fact that no incriminating material relating to these bogus purchases were found during the course of search and no assessment or reassessment was pending as on the date ... well as the issue of making addition M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 without having any incriminating material has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A) in his order as under:- “In ground Nos. 3 to 7 of the appeal, the assessee

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1354/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

confirming the AO's action of making the estimation of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 22,34,11,367/- despite the fact that no incriminating material relating to these bogus purchases were found during the course of search and no assessment or reassessment was pending as on the date ... well as the issue of making addition M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 without having any incriminating material has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A) in his order as under:- “In ground Nos. 3 to 7 of the appeal, the assessee

DCIT - CC 3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1353/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

confirming the AO's action of making the estimation of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 22,34,11,367/- despite the fact that no incriminating material relating to these bogus purchases were found during the course of search and no assessment or reassessment was pending as on the date ... well as the issue of making addition M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 without having any incriminating material has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A) in his order as under:- “In ground Nos. 3 to 7 of the appeal, the assessee

DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

confirming the AO's action of making the estimation of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 22,34,11,367/- despite the fact that no incriminating material relating to these bogus purchases were found during the course of search and no assessment or reassessment was pending as on the date ... well as the issue of making addition M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 without having any incriminating material has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A) in his order as under:- “In ground Nos. 3 to 7 of the appeal, the assessee

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 312/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

erred in making/confirming the additions to income of the appellant. The additions as made/confirmed are not sustainable in law especially in the absence of incriminating material. Such additions made/confirmed are bad in law and additions made are to be deleted in entirety.” 3.1 We have heard the both the parties ... There were no seized materials for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. In the case of assessment years 2008-09, no incriminating materials found in the course of search of assessee’s premises. However, on the basis of materials found at the search, in the case

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 311/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

erred in making/confirming the additions to income of the appellant. The additions as made/confirmed are not sustainable in law especially in the absence of incriminating material. Such additions made/confirmed are bad in law and additions made are to be deleted in entirety.” 3.1 We have heard the both the parties ... There were no seized materials for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. In the case of assessment years 2008-09, no incriminating materials found in the course of search of assessee’s premises. However, on the basis of materials found at the search, in the case

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

erred in making/confirming the additions to income of the appellant. The additions as made/confirmed are not sustainable in law especially in the absence of incriminating material. Such additions made/confirmed are bad in law and additions made are to be deleted in entirety.” 3.1 We have heard the both the parties ... There were no seized materials for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. In the case of assessment years 2008-09, no incriminating materials found in the course of search of assessee’s premises. However, on the basis of materials found at the search, in the case

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 309/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

erred in making/confirming the additions to income of the appellant. The additions as made/confirmed are not sustainable in law especially in the absence of incriminating material. Such additions made/confirmed are bad in law and additions made are to be deleted in entirety.” 3.1 We have heard the both the parties ... There were no seized materials for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. In the case of assessment years 2008-09, no incriminating materials found in the course of search of assessee’s premises. However, on the basis of materials found at the search, in the case

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 308/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

erred in making/confirming the additions to income of the appellant. The additions as made/confirmed are not sustainable in law especially in the absence of incriminating material. Such additions made/confirmed are bad in law and additions made are to be deleted in entirety.” 3.1 We have heard the both the parties ... There were no seized materials for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. In the case of assessment years 2008-09, no incriminating materials found in the course of search of assessee’s premises. However, on the basis of materials found at the search, in the case

K. G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

erred in making/confirming the additions to income of the appellant. The additions as made/confirmed are not sustainable in law especially in the absence of incriminating material. Such additions made/confirmed are bad in law and additions made are to be deleted in entirety.” 3.1 We have heard the both the parties ... There were no seized materials for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. In the case of assessment years 2008-09, no incriminating materials found in the course of search of assessee’s premises. However, on the basis of materials found at the search, in the case

Shobha Chidambara\M, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1913/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chaurasia
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

impugned purchases. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal further noted that the Assessing Officer has not made any independent enquiry nor any incriminating material was brought on record, except relying on the report of Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. Thus, it is evident that the entire addition has been

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 357/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 153C

seized material shows that notional interest calculation blocked in the advance of the assessee company. This material cannot be treated as incriminating Material and draw inference that there is escapement of income by way of interest by the assessee. this evidence cannot be considered for reopening assessment under 153C r.w.s ... Virwani is neither books of accounts nor receipt given by the ussessee nor any valuable document registered or otherwise to construe as incriminating material evidence to initiate proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and therefore the issue of notice u/s 153C r. w..s. 153A and subsequent proceedings

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 356/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 153C

seized material shows that notional interest calculation blocked in the advance of the assessee company. This material cannot be treated as incriminating Material and draw inference that there is escapement of income by way of interest by the assessee. this evidence cannot be considered for reopening assessment under 153C r.w.s ... Virwani is neither books of accounts nor receipt given by the ussessee nor any valuable document registered or otherwise to construe as incriminating material evidence to initiate proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and therefore the issue of notice u/s 153C r. w..s. 153A and subsequent proceedings

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 355/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 153C

seized material shows that notional interest calculation blocked in the advance of the assessee company. This material cannot be treated as incriminating Material and draw inference that there is escapement of income by way of interest by the assessee. this evidence cannot be considered for reopening assessment under 153C r.w.s ... Virwani is neither books of accounts nor receipt given by the ussessee nor any valuable document registered or otherwise to construe as incriminating material evidence to initiate proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and therefore the issue of notice u/s 153C r. w..s. 153A and subsequent proceedings

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 354/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 153C

seized material shows that notional interest calculation blocked in the advance of the assessee company. This material cannot be treated as incriminating Material and draw inference that there is escapement of income by way of interest by the assessee. this evidence cannot be considered for reopening assessment under 153C r.w.s ... Virwani is neither books of accounts nor receipt given by the ussessee nor any valuable document registered or otherwise to construe as incriminating material evidence to initiate proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and therefore the issue of notice u/s 153C r. w..s. 153A and subsequent proceedings

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 353/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 153C

seized material shows that notional interest calculation blocked in the advance of the assessee company. This material cannot be treated as incriminating Material and draw inference that there is escapement of income by way of interest by the assessee. this evidence cannot be considered for reopening assessment under 153C r.w.s ... Virwani is neither books of accounts nor receipt given by the ussessee nor any valuable document registered or otherwise to construe as incriminating material evidence to initiate proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and therefore the issue of notice u/s 153C r. w..s. 153A and subsequent proceedings

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 352/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 153C

seized material shows that notional interest calculation blocked in the advance of the assessee company. This material cannot be treated as incriminating Material and draw inference that there is escapement of income by way of interest by the assessee. this evidence cannot be considered for reopening assessment under 153C r.w.s ... Virwani is neither books of accounts nor receipt given by the ussessee nor any valuable document registered or otherwise to construe as incriminating material evidence to initiate proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and therefore the issue of notice u/s 153C r. w..s. 153A and subsequent proceedings

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

October 2013. None of the letters pertain to the assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13. Since, there is no date specific incriminating material for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13 no addition could have been made by the Assessing Officer in the said assessment years ... 162/MUM/2021 Society vs. ACIT reported as 16 taxamann.com 101 (Pune –ITAT) to contend that in the absence of assessment year specific incriminating material assessment under section 153A/153C are not sustainable. 3.1. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee asserted that the assessment for 2008-09 to 2012-13 had concluded