← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4448/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

case and in law the Ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee as alleged “on money” received without considering that the incriminating materials proves that there is involvement of cash in the sale of flats and the same has not been accounted in the assessee's books ... documents contained narrations of transactions. Also the presumption u/s.132(4A) of the Act was applicable to the person from whose possession or control the incriminating material is found and seized. Presumptions regarding correctness of contents of books of account etc. could not be raised against the third party. Further, even

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4445/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

case and in law the Ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee as alleged “on money” received without considering that the incriminating materials proves that there is involvement of cash in the sale of flats and the same has not been accounted in the assessee’s books ... contained narrations of transactions. Also the presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Act was applicable to the person from whose possession or control the incriminating material is found and seized. Presumptions regarding correctness of contents of books of account etc. could not be raised against the third party. Further, even

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ms. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4444/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

case and in law the Ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee as alleged “on money” received without considering that the incriminating materials proves that there is involvement of cash in the sale of flats and the same has not been accounted in the assessee's books ... documents contained narrations of transactions. Also the presumption u/s.132(4A) of the Act was applicable to the person from whose possession or control the incriminating material is found and seized. Presumptions regarding correctness of contents of books of account etc. could not be raised against the third party. Further, even

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Ajay Nagpal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

sustained and the addition made was deleted. 6. Before us, ld.DR placing reliance on the assessment order submitted that incriminating materials were available. Besides, contractors were from West Bengal not local. Also no signature, thumb impression was recorded in in RA Bill/No contractual agreement. On the other hand, the ld.AR ... placed heavy reliance on the appellate order.It is submitted that no addition could be justified without incriminating materials. Payments were through banking channels and Page 9 ITA No. 3625/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2013-14 Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai made TDS was duly made.No independent enquiry was conducted by the AO. Engaging

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwarjka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2355/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

action of Ld. Assessing Officer in proceeding with the assessment for the relevant unabated Assessment Year 2012-13 even when there were no incriminating materials found during the course of impugned search proceedings; thereby holding contrary to the ratio laid down by Jurisdictional High Court in the case ... order of the ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee and the assessee has challenged on the ground that there was no incriminating material found during the search proceeding. 8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue contended that the assessee has failed

Dy.C.I, T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2353/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

action of Ld. Assessing Officer in proceeding with the assessment for the relevant unabated Assessment Year 2012-13 even when there were no incriminating materials found during the course of impugned search proceedings; thereby holding contrary to the ratio laid down by Jurisdictional High Court in the case ... order of the ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee and the assessee has challenged on the ground that there was no incriminating material found during the search proceeding. 8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue contended that the assessee has failed

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2352/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

action of Ld. Assessing Officer in proceeding with the assessment for the relevant unabated Assessment Year 2012-13 even when there were no incriminating materials found during the course of impugned search proceedings; thereby holding contrary to the ratio laid down by Jurisdictional High Court in the case ... order of the ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee and the assessee has challenged on the ground that there was no incriminating material found during the search proceeding. 8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue contended that the assessee has failed

Dy C.I.T. Cent Cir -6(2), `Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2351/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

action of Ld. Assessing Officer in proceeding with the assessment for the relevant unabated Assessment Year 2012-13 even when there were no incriminating materials found during the course of impugned search proceedings; thereby holding contrary to the ratio laid down by Jurisdictional High Court in the case ... order of the ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee and the assessee has challenged on the ground that there was no incriminating material found during the search proceeding. 8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue contended that the assessee has failed

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. SMC Foods Ltd, Saharanpur

In the result, Revenue appeal ITA No

ITA 2661/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271A

this regard 4 he has further drawn our attention to this particular fact that in this particular case there was no existence of any incriminating material found or unearthed during the course of search. However, the penalty 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act has been levied on undisclosed income whereas ... assessee. 5 5. After careful consideration of the entire facts of the matter including the record placed before us it is found that no incriminating material was unearthed during the course of search and the statement recorded during the course of search of Shri Mool Chand Agarwal of offering

Jamnadas Purshotam Patel, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Center-1, Rajkot

ITA 60/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 250

addition of Rs.12,28,16,100/- in respect of unaccounted on-money receipts, ignoring the facts that during the course of search proceedings, various incriminating materials pertaining to “Decora Westhill Project” found and seized from the premise of Himanshu Raiyai (accountant of the assessee as well as group concerns ... During the course of search at the residential premises of Shri Himanshu Raiyani (accountant and key person and cash handler of the group), various incriminating materials pertaining to DECORA WESTHILL PROJECT starting from unaccounted investment for possession of land to unaccounted expenditure in development of the project and on money

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle vs. Maruti Enterprise, Rajkot

ITA 228/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. It(Ss)A No Assessment Assessee Name Respondent Name No. Year 1. 12/Rjt/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Shri Chetan Dhirajlal Rokad Of Income-Tax, Central 1, Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Circle-1, Rajkot, Road, Near G.T. School “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Rajkot-360 001 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Pan.:Afkpr4637P 2. 13/Rjt/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Shri Nikhilbhai Jamnadas Of Income-Tax, Central Patel Circle-1, Rajkot, P-1, Decora Highland, “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Avadh Main Road, Opp. Floor, M.G. Road, Classic Party Plot Rajkot- Rajkot-360 001 360 005 Pan No.: Agipp 1294 K 3. 17/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Shri Dhirajlal Ravji Rokad Of Income-Tax, Central 1, Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Circle-1, Rajkot, Road, Near G.T. School “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Rajkot-360 001 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Panno.:Abopr5408A 19 & 2017-18 & Deputy Commissioner Shri Rohitkumar Maganlal 4. 20/Rjt/2024 2018-19 Of Income-Tax, Central Sanepara Circle-1, Rajkot, Kangshiyani Road, Opp. “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Sundaram Vidhyalaya, Floor, M.G. Road, Dholra Chokdi, Kothariya, Rajkot-360 001 Rajkot-360 004 Panno.:Aaopp4848H 5. 59-60/Rjt/2023 2017-18 & Deputy Commissioner M/S Maruti Enterprise 2018-19 Of Income-Tax, Central Decora West Hills, Near Classic Party Plot, Opp. Circle-1, Rajkot, Kalawa Road, Rajkot-360 “Amruta Estate” 2Nd 005 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Panno.:Abdfm3140K 6. 228/Rjt/2023 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner M/S Maruti Enterprise Of Income-Tax, Central

Section 250

addition of Rs.12,28,16,100/- in respect of unaccounted on-money receipts, ignoring the facts that during the course of search proceedings, various incriminating materials pertaining to “Decora Westhill Project” found and seized from the premise of Himanshu Raiyai (accountant of the assessee as well as group concerns ... During the course of search at the residential premises of Shri Himanshu Raiyani (accountant and key person and cash handler of the group), various incriminating materials pertaining to DECORA WESTHILL PROJECT starting from unaccounted investment for possession of land to unaccounted expenditure in development of the project and on money

Mr. B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the penalty appeals are allowed

ITA 2087/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

Masaniamman Thunai Chit Funds Kovai Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘SMT Chit Funds‘). In the course of search, it was inter alia certain incriminating materials were discovered, which according to the Revenue revealed that assessee had received cash loan ... found the denial of assessee to be not acceptable for the reason that assessee failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the incriminating material found during search against him for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act and confirmed the penalty for all the three assessment years by passing

B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

ITA 2086/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mr.A.G. SathyanarayanaFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

Masaniamman Thunai Chit Funds Kovai Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `SMT Chit Funds'). In the course of search, it was inter alia certain incriminating materials were discovered, which according to the Revenue revealed that assessee had received cash loan ... found the denial of assessee to be not acceptable for the reason that assessee failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the incriminating material found during search against him for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act and confirmed the penalty for all the three assessment years by passing

B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the penalty appeals are allowed

ITA 2085/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

Masaniamman Thunai Chit Funds Kovai Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘SMT Chit Funds‘). In the course of search, it was inter alia certain incriminating materials were discovered, which according to the Revenue revealed that assessee had received cash loan ... found the denial of assessee to be not acceptable for the reason that assessee failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the incriminating material found during search against him for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act and confirmed the penalty for all the three assessment years by passing

Biren Manna, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward-23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6373/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69B

alleged cash payment. Reliance was placed on various decisions of the Tribunal to submit that no addition could be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found from the assessee or evidence directly implicating him. But the Ld. Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition ... wherein it was held that mere third-party notings or statements, without any supporting evidence such as handwriting, signatures, or other incriminating material belonging to the assessee, could not justify an addition on account of alleged on-money. It was specifically pointed out that none of the seized documents bore

Indermal Devilal Parmar, Malad (W), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5075/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

natural justice and such an action be deleted and or the order of the lower authorities be set aside. Ground No. 3: Addition without Incriminating material - Rs. 12.00.000/-: Section 132 read with section 143(3) of the Act: 1. On the facts and In the circumstances of the case ... erred in confirming the action of the AO of making addition in hands of the Appellant without any Incriminating material pursuant to the search. 2. The Appellant prays that the action of the lower authorities be deleted. Without prejudice to above Ground No. 4: Unexplained cash under section

Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5059/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

disallowance was made by the AO based on the loose excel sheet and statement of Shri Shailesh Desai by ignoring the fact that incriminating material and seized materials related to the assessee during the Search action? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5058/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

disallowance was made by the AO based on the loose excel sheet and statement of Shri Shailesh Desai by ignoring the fact that incriminating material and seized materials related to the assessee during the Search action? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai vs. Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai

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

ITA 2431/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

disallowance was made by the AO based on the loose excel sheet and statement of Shri Shailesh Desai by ignoring the fact that incriminating material and seized materials related to the assessee during the Search action? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Abhayraj Fattehraj Chordiya, C/O Laxmi Oil Mil

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R BhattFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

return of cheques. Further, there is no date in the satisfaction note. He submitted that the loose sheets do not represent any asset or incriminating material. Mere notings in loose papers without any corresponding asset, payment or transaction being found cannot be treated as incriminating material and therefore, invocation ... High Court in the said decision has held that the notice u/s 153A of the Act without mentioning the details of incriminating material found during the course of search makes such notice invalid. It has been held in the said decision that issuance of show cause notice is a preliminary