← 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

Syed Mohammed Asad Ullah Hussaini, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 268/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.268/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Syed Mohammed Asad Vs. Acit, Ullah Hussaini, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abfph0148G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, Dated 14.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, ”Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28.03.2022, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(Appeals) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69

erred by not considering the fact that the invoking provisions of Sec 153C of the Act, without there being any incriminating material found belonging to the assessee during the search proceedings, is invalid and bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not appreciating the fact that ... search assessment no addition can be made to the income already determined in a concluded assessment, without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search proceedings belonging to that of the assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the invocation of provisions of Sec 153C

Smita Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4441/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Amit Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaepj 8462 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) & Smt. Smita Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8102 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shash Bekal Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S, Arising Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. While Ita No. 4440/Mum/2025 Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, Ita No.4441/Mum/2025 Relates To A.Y. 2017-18. (Ays. 2014-15 & 2017-18) Shri Amit Jatia & Smt. Smita Jatia 2. Since, Appellants Are Closely Related, Being Husband & Wife & Issues Arising For Consideration Are More Or Less Identical, They Have Been Clubbed Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in the search and seizure operation conducted in case of the assessee, no incriminating material whatsoever was found indicating payment of cash towards purchase of jewelry. He submitted, solely relying upon the statement of a Thirty Party and some documents ... cheque, no additional amount was paid in cash. Pertinently, in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of the assessee, no incriminating material was found indicating payment of cash by the assessee towards purchase of jewellery. When the assessee has categorically denied of having paid any cash, over

Amit Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4440/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Amit Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaepj 8462 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) & Smt. Smita Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8102 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shash Bekal Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S, Arising Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. While Ita No. 4440/Mum/2025 Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, Ita No.4441/Mum/2025 Relates To A.Y. 2017-18. (Ays. 2014-15 & 2017-18) Shri Amit Jatia & Smt. Smita Jatia 2. Since, Appellants Are Closely Related, Being Husband & Wife & Issues Arising For Consideration Are More Or Less Identical, They Have Been Clubbed Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in the search and seizure operation conducted in case of the assessee, no incriminating material whatsoever was found indicating payment of cash towards purchase of jewelry. He submitted, solely relying upon the statement of a Thirty Party and some documents ... cheque, no additional amount was paid in cash. Pertinently, in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of the assessee, no incriminating material was found indicating payment of cash by the assessee towards purchase of jewellery. When the assessee has categorically denied of having paid any cash, over