← 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

Alpesh K. Ajmera HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 18(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 4041/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 147Section 68Section 69

submitted that all transactions were carried out through stock exchange, registered stockbrokers, duly supported by contract notes, demat statements and bank channels, and no incriminating material or cash trail was found during the survey at assessee's premises. It was also pointed out that no evidence was brought on record ... time limit for issue of notice under section 143(2) had expired before the date of search. The Tribunal recorded a finding that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, and the seized documents consisted only of regular books such as ledger extracts, stock summaries and investment

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Bentec India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle -1(1), Kolkata.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bentec India Ltd………………. ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Phase-Ii, Kasba Industrial Estates, Plot No.11, Kol-700107.. [Pan: Aabcb0647G] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manish Tiwari, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 186 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68

premises of this group and the assessee-company also covered under the Search and seizure operation. In course of search and seizure operation, no incriminating material was found. The A.O. issued notice u/s 153A directing the assessee to file return u/s 153A of the Act and in response to such

Namah Shivaya Marketing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4931/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Yogendra Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 133(6)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

amounting to Rs. 11,30,000/-, which was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) claiming that the additions are devoid of any reference to incriminating material found during the course of search and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law. 4. After considering ... addition is made on the basis of unexplained deposits in the bank. The ld DR however, did not controvert the fact that no incriminating materials were found with regard to the addition and heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 7. We have heard

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3515/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

upholding the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without there being any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to AY 2011-12, which is a non-abated assessment year. 2 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 ... That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment was bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search, thereby contravening the binding precedent laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (61 taxmann.com

Purushuttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 3514/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

upholding the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without there being any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to AY 2011-12, which is a non-abated assessment year. 2 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 ... That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment was bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search, thereby contravening the binding precedent laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (61 taxmann.com

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3513/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

upholding the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without there being any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to AY 2011-12, which is a non-abated assessment year. 2 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 ... That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment was bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search, thereby contravening the binding precedent laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (61 taxmann.com

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3512/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

upholding the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without there being any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to AY 2011-12, which is a non-abated assessment year. 2 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 ... That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment was bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search, thereby contravening the binding precedent laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (61 taxmann.com

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3511/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

upholding the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without there being any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to AY 2011-12, which is a non-abated assessment year. 2 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 ... That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment was bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search, thereby contravening the binding precedent laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (61 taxmann.com

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3510/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

upholding the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without there being any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to AY 2011-12, which is a non-abated assessment year. 2 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 ... That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment was bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search, thereby contravening the binding precedent laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (61 taxmann.com

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3509/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

upholding the assessment order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without there being any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to AY 2011-12, which is a non-abated assessment year. 2 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 ... That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire assessment was bad in law and void ab initio in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of the search, thereby contravening the binding precedent laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (61 taxmann.com

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

appellant, during which the Income Tax officials seized books of account, bank statements (PNB A/C No. 7789002100000321), donation records, cash vouchers, and other incriminating materials. 2.2 The Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi, reopened the appellant's case for A.Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 and completed

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

ITA 2984/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

appellant, during which the Income Tax officials seized books of account, bank statements (PNB A/C No. 7789002100000321), donation records, cash vouchers, and other incriminating materials. 2.2 The Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi, reopened the appellant's case for A.Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 and completed

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

appellant, during which the Income Tax officials seized books of account, bank statements (PNB A/C No. 7789002100000321), donation records, cash vouchers, and other incriminating materials. 2.2 The Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi, reopened the appellant's case for A.Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 and completed

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

ITA 2982/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

appellant, during which the Income Tax officials seized books of account, bank statements (PNB A/C No. 7789002100000321), donation records, cash vouchers, and other incriminating materials. 2.2 The Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi, reopened the appellant's case for A.Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 and completed

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, Delhi

ITA 2966/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

appellant, during which the Income Tax officials seized books of account, bank statements (PNB A/C No. 7789002100000321), donation records, cash vouchers, and other incriminating materials. 2.2 The Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi, reopened the appellant's case for A.Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 and completed

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 2813/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

appellant, during which the Income Tax officials seized books of account, bank statements (PNB A/C No. 7789002100000321), donation records, cash vouchers, and other incriminating materials. 2.2 The Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi, reopened the appellant's case for A.Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 and completed

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 2812/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

appellant, during which the Income Tax officials seized books of account, bank statements (PNB A/C No. 7789002100000321), donation records, cash vouchers, and other incriminating materials. 2.2 The Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi, reopened the appellant's case for A.Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 and completed

Public Political Party, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 2761/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 13ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 29ASection 68

appellant, during which the Income Tax officials seized books of account, bank statements (PNB A/C No. 7789002100000321), donation records, cash vouchers, and other incriminating materials. 2.2 The Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi, reopened the appellant's case for A.Y. 2015-16 under Section 147 and completed

Shailesh Kumar, Meerut vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut

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

ITA 2108/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalshailesh Kumar, Asst. Cit (Central) C/O Malik & Co. Meerut. (Advisors & Advocate- Vs. Since 1927), 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Argpk0548N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv., Shri Sanjay Malik, Adv.,Shri Murtaza Shuberi, Adv. & Shri Praveen Bansal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S., Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Shailesh Kumar Vs. Acit 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out On 24.05.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & It Was Covered In The Search In The Case Of H.S. Tewari Group Of Cases. An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 142(3)/153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Making Addition Of Rs.12,01,153/- As The Assessee Failed To Prove The Source Of The Investment In Construction.

Section 132Section 142(3)Section 153Section 153A

Counsel for the assessee arguing on grounds No.1, 4 & 5 of the appeal, submitted that the addition made by the AO is dehors the incriminating material found during the course of search. Therefore, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT ... parties and perused the materials available on record. Ongoing through the assessment order, it is found that the addition has been made dehors incriminating material, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) laid down the ratio that, the addition by exercising jurisdiction u/s 153A/153C

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Rms Diversified Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed and of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1714/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwall, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C

years the thumb rule to be followed was that assessment could have been completed u/s 153A of the Act only on the basis of incriminating material found during the search and it was contended that no incriminating P a g e | 6 ITA Nos.1527 to 1530, 1643 & 1714/Del/2023 RMS Diversified ... material has been referred in the assessment orders. The ld. Counsel primarily relied the findings of AO to contend that not a single incriminating material is referred in the assessment. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell