← 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

DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Light House Movie Makers LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 319/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.297/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2015-16) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Shri Atchi Reddy Kovvuri, Hyderabad Pan: Adopk6018R (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.318 & 319/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21) Vs. M/S. Light House Movie Makers Llp, Hyderabad. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Pan: Aagfl8979H (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr 18/11/2025 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G, A.М. : These Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, All Dated 19.11.2024 For The

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153C

with other. assessment years). 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that a combined satisfaction note cannot be made without appreciating that the incriminating material for relevant periods was mentioned and was available for examination by the AO. 6. Any other ground that may arise during the course ... case of V V Bala Krishna Rao (HUF), Proprietor of Usha Pictures and Financiers. During the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating material i.e. loose sheets containing financial transactions pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s.153C of the Act after recording satisfaction

DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Light House Movie Makers LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 318/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.297/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Atchi Reddy Kovvuri, Vs. Hyderabad Tax, Pan : Adopk6018R Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.318 & 319/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Light House Movie Makers Vs. Llp, Hyderabad. Tax, Pan : Aagfl8979H Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessees By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, All Dated 19.11.2024 For The

For Respondent: Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153C

case of V V Bala Krishna Rao (HUF), Proprietor of Usha Pictures and Financiers. During the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating material i.e. loose sheets containing financial transactions pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s.153C of the Act after recording satisfaction ... u/s.153C of the Act is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed because, the Assessing Officer has not arrived at satisfaction qua incriminating material found during the course of search for each assessment year indicating unaccounted income of the assessee has a bearing on the determination

DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Atchi Reddy Kovuuri, Hhyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 297/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.297/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Atchi Reddy Kovvuri, Vs. Hyderabad Tax, Pan : Adopk6018R Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.318 & 319/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Light House Movie Makers Vs. Llp, Hyderabad. Tax, Pan : Aagfl8979H Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessees By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, All Dated 19.11.2024 For The

For Respondent: Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153C

case of V V Bala Krishna Rao (HUF), Proprietor of Usha Pictures and Financiers. During the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating material i.e. loose sheets containing financial transactions pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s.153C of the Act after recording satisfaction ... u/s.153C of the Act is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed because, the Assessing Officer has not arrived at satisfaction qua incriminating material found during the course of search for each assessment year indicating unaccounted income of the assessee has a bearing on the determination

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6571/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, as per the facts of present matter, during the search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group, certain incriminating material was found, relates to the assessee Shri Manish Mali, further confronted and admitted by Mr. Imran Ansari (employee of Rubberwala Group) and Mr. Tabrez

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6569/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, as per the facts of present matter, during the search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group, certain incriminating material was found, relates to the assessee Shri Manish Mali, further confronted and admitted by Mr. Imran Ansari (employee of Rubberwala Group) and Mr. Tabrez

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6568/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Rajpurohit, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.5488/Mum/2025
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, as per the facts of present matter, during the search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group, certain incriminating material was found, relates to the assessee Shri Manish Mali, further confronted and admitted by Mr. Imran Ansari (employee of Rubberwala Group) and Mr. Tabrez

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6480/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, as per the facts of present matter, during the search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group, certain incriminating material was found, relates to the assessee Shri Manish Mali, further confronted and admitted by Mr. Imran Ansari (employee of Rubberwala Group) and Mr. Tabrez

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Centra Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6479/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, as per the facts of present matter, during the search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group, certain incriminating material was found, relates to the assessee Shri Manish Mali, further confronted and admitted by Mr. Imran Ansari (employee of Rubberwala Group) and Mr. Tabrez

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle, Mumbai

ITA 6478/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, as per the facts of present matter, during the search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group, certain incriminating material was found, relates to the assessee Shri Manish Mali, further confronted and admitted by Mr. Imran Ansari (employee of Rubberwala Group) and Mr. Tabrez

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 6112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

ATDPD2225Q 16,77,834 5 Sharma Ventures ABRFS7268J 40,32,041 Total 2,70,49,440 7. In response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which ... various projects even in the subsequent years. The learned AR submitted that there is no finding of any of the lower authorities that any incriminating material was found during the search, which leads to the conclusion that the impugned purchases were non-genuine. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5965/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

ATDPD2225Q 16,77,834 5 Sharma Ventures ABRFS7268J 40,32,041 Total 2,70,49,440 7. In response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which ... various projects even in the subsequent years. The learned AR submitted that there is no finding of any of the lower authorities that any incriminating material was found during the search, which leads to the conclusion that the impugned purchases were non-genuine. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5964/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

ATDPD2225Q 16,77,834 5 Sharma Ventures ABRFS7268J 40,32,041 Total 2,70,49,440 7. In response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which ... various projects even in the subsequent years. The learned AR submitted that there is no finding of any of the lower authorities that any incriminating material was found during the search, which leads to the conclusion that the impugned purchases were non-genuine. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5963/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

ATDPD2225Q 16,77,834 5 Sharma Ventures ABRFS7268J 40,32,041 Total 2,70,49,440 7. In response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which ... various projects even in the subsequent years. The learned AR submitted that there is no finding of any of the lower authorities that any incriminating material was found during the search, which leads to the conclusion that the impugned purchases were non-genuine. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5962/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

ATDPD2225Q 16,77,834 5 Sharma Ventures ABRFS7268J 40,32,041 Total 2,70,49,440 7. In response, the assessee submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of the search, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the transactions with the above-mentioned parties or which ... various projects even in the subsequent years. The learned AR submitted that there is no finding of any of the lower authorities that any incriminating material was found during the search, which leads to the conclusion that the impugned purchases were non-genuine. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that

Darpan Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5489/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, as per the facts of present matter, during the search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group, certain incriminating material was found, relates to the assessee Shri Manish Mali, further confronted and admitted by Mr. Imran Ansari (employee of Rubberwala Group) and Mr. Tabrez

Darpan Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5488/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides,he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... jurisprudence relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, as per the facts of present matter, during the search and seizure action on Rubberwala Group, certain incriminating material was found, relates to the assessee Shri Manish Mali, further confronted and admitted by Mr. Imran Ansari (employee of Rubberwala Group) and Mr. Tabrez

Bhavika Ravi Sukhija, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Central)-Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5220/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Haresh P. KhunadiaFor Respondent: 17/12/2025
Section 132Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority noted that the addition was founded o noted that the addition was founded on incriminating material n incriminating material seized during the search, including the Excel sheets specifically seized during the search, including the Excel sheets specifically seized during

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I Noida, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

conducted on 04.01.2022 at the premises of the ACE & Rudra Group. That it is an admitted and undisputed position that no Incriminating material was found or seized during the search conducted at the respondent's premises which could indicate any remission, waiver, write-off or cessation of the loan liability

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Surender Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed as discussed hereinabove

ITA 2873/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.1670 To 1672/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Surender Gupta, Dy. Cit, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Central Circle-30, H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit, Surender Gupta, Central Circle-1, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Noida. Vs. H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, Adv. & Shri Aakash Ojha, Adv. Department By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Three Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A) In Short”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act In Short”], All Are Dated 24.02.2025 Against The Orders Of The Assessing Officer U/S 153A R.W.S Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Respectively.

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Rs.39,59,739- out of total addition of Rs.45,25,415/-made on account of bogus purchases by applying the G.P. rate & ignoring the incriminating material and corroborative evidence seized during the search, including statements under section 132(4), WhatsApp chats, and Tally data evidencing the use of accommodation entries

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Noida vs. Surender Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed as discussed hereinabove

ITA 2872/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.1670 To 1672/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Surender Gupta, Dy. Cit, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Central Circle-30, H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit, Surender Gupta, Central Circle-1, A-27, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Noida. Vs. H.O. North West Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaopg2234J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, Adv. & Shri Aakash Ojha, Adv. Department By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Three Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A) In Short”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act In Short”], All Are Dated 24.02.2025 Against The Orders Of The Assessing Officer U/S 153A R.W.S Ita Nos.2871 To 2873/Del/2025 Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Respectively.

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Rs.39,59,739- out of total addition of Rs.45,25,415/-made on account of bogus purchases by applying the G.P. rate & ignoring the incriminating material and corroborative evidence seized during the search, including statements under section 132(4), WhatsApp chats, and Tally data evidencing the use of accommodation entries