← 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 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4007/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Shri Siddharth Srivastava
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Appellate Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3993/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3972/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3146/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3145/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3144/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeals are dismissed and assessee's appeals are

ITA 3142/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Appellate Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3140/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

Authority, both the Revenue and assessee are in appeal before us. 13. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, in course of search and seizure operation, incriminating materials were found indicating that assessee and group entities were involved in back to back purchase and sale transactions within the group utilizing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp2484B Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Respondent) (Appellant) Sushil Kumar Kanodia N-601, Profesor Colony, Acit, Central Circle-2 Chitragupta Nagar, Kanakrbagh, Vs. Patna, Bihar Patna-800020, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agypk0702D Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

legal issue by rejecting the plea of the assessee to the effect that since the addition has been made on the basis of incriminating material seized from the third party, therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated u/s 153C of the Act and the assessment should have been framed accordingly ... relevant assessment year is 2020-21, which had to be compulsory taken under scrutiny and this year is not fettered by requirement of incriminating material. Further, before initiating proceeding for this AY, the AO already had LT-02 in his possession. No separate action uls 1530 was warranted

Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of

ITA 332/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

legal issue by rejecting the plea of the assessee to the effect that since the addition has been made on the basis of incriminating material seized from the third party, therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated u/s 153C of the Act and the assessment should have been framed accordingly ... relevant assessment year is 2020-21, which had to be compulsory taken under scrutiny and this year is not fettered by requirement of incriminating material. Further, before initiating proceeding for this AY, the AO already had LT-02 in his possession. No separate action uls 1530 was warranted

Sushil Kumar Kanodia, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp2484B Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Respondent) (Appellant) Sushil Kumar Kanodia N-601, Profesor Colony, Acit, Central Circle-2 Chitragupta Nagar, Kanakrbagh, Vs. Patna, Bihar Patna-800020, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agypk0702D Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

legal issue by rejecting the plea of the assessee to the effect that since the addition has been made on the basis of incriminating material seized from the third party, therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated u/s 153C of the Act and the assessment should have been framed accordingly ... relevant assessment year is 2020-21, which had to be compulsory taken under scrutiny and this year is not fettered by requirement of incriminating material. Further, before initiating proceeding for this AY, the AO already had LT-02 in his possession. No separate action uls 1530 was warranted

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1627/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

reopened under section 147 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by issue of notice under section 148 dated 30th March 2021. The incriminating material found during the search operation from the Laptop and Pen drive of one Shri Gautam J Shah contained various details of the booked/sold projects ... matter of record that the assessment was reopened and the impugned additions has been made by the AO on the basis of alleged incriminating material found during the search operation from the Laptop and Pen drive of Shri Gautam J Shah. The assessee has denied his relation or concern with

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1621/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

reopened under section 147 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by issue of notice under section 148 dated 30th March 2021. The incriminating material found during the search operation from the Laptop and Pen drive of one Shri Gautam J Shah contained various details of the booked/sold projects ... matter of record that the assessment was reopened and the impugned additions has been made by the AO on the basis of alleged incriminating material found during the search operation from the Laptop and Pen drive of Shri Gautam J Shah. The assessee has denied his relation or concern with

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1620/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

reopened under section 147 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by issue of notice under section 148 dated 30th March 2021. The incriminating material found during the search operation from the Laptop and Pen drive of one Shri Gautam J Shah contained various details of the booked/sold projects ... matter of record that the assessment was reopened and the impugned additions has been made by the AO on the basis of alleged incriminating material found during the search operation from the Laptop and Pen drive of Shri Gautam J Shah. The assessee has denied his relation or concern with

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Brgd Sponge & Iron Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 1966/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

High Court in the case of “Naresh Kumar Agarwal” (2015) 53 taxmann.com 306 (Andhra Pradesh) has observed that where, in the absence of any incriminating material etc. found from the premises of the assessee during the course of search, statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) would not have ... income was also deposited, but thereafter it was contended by the assessee that the surrender was made under threat or coercion and that no incriminating material was found during the search action. The stand of the department was that the admission was voluntary and was not under a mistaken belief

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cnetral Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are

ITA 1606/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhu Malti Ghosh, DR
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69A

Ranchi/ Kolkata and assessee being a close associate of the group was also covered under the said search. During the course of search certain incriminating materials were found and seized marked as DKG-01 to DKG-09. Accordingly, the notice u/s 153A was issued on 08.11.2021, and the assessee replied

Brgd Sponge & Iron Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

ITA 1403/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA