← 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

Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 144/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh Ito, Ward 1, Nr Goraba Takies Jamkhed, Vs. Ahmednagar Ahmednagar – 413201 Pan: Hozps1445M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas P Bora Department By : Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-10-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is bad in law and void ab initio as once reassessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of incriminating material found in the search of 3rd party then the provisions of section 153C of the Act are applicable which override the applicability of sections ... assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is bad in law and void ab initio as once reassessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of incriminating material found in the search of 3rd party then the provisions of section 153C of the Act are applicable which override the applicability of sections

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1878/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

that the ledger account of ‘Mine Development Expenses’, being part of the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, cannot be regarded as incriminating material discovered during the course of search. The Id.CIT(A) further recorded a finding that since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated ... date of search, in the absence of any independent incriminating material suggesting that the books of account of the assessee were sham or manipulated, the additions so made could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Id.CIT(A) deleted the additions made towards bogus expenses

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

that the ledger account of ‘Mine Development Expenses', being part of the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, cannot be regarded as incriminating material discovered during the course of search. The Id.CIT(A) further recorded a finding that since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated ... date of search, in the absence of any independent incriminating material suggesting that the books of account of the assessee were sham or manipulated, the additions so made could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Id.CIT(A) deleted the additions made towards bogus expenses. 9. With regard

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1875/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

that the ledger account of ‘Mine Development Expenses', being part of the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, cannot be regarded as incriminating material discovered during the course of search. The Id.CIT(A) further recorded a finding that since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated ... date of search, in the absence of any independent incriminating material suggesting that the books of account of the assessee were sham or manipulated, the additions so made could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Id.CIT(A) deleted the additions made towards bogus expenses. 9. With regard

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

that the ledger account of ‘Mine Development Expenses’, being part of the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, cannot be regarded as incriminating material discovered during the course of search. The Id.CIT(A) further recorded a finding that since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated ... date of search, in the absence of any independent incriminating material suggesting that the books of account of the assessee were sham or manipulated, the additions so made could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Id.CIT(A) deleted the additions made towards bogus expenses

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1872/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

that the ledger account of ‘Mine Development Expenses’, being part of the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, cannot be regarded as incriminating material discovered during the course of search. The Id.CIT(A) further recorded a finding that since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated ... date of search, in the absence of any independent incriminating material suggesting that the books of account of the assessee were sham or manipulated, the additions so made could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Id.CIT(A) deleted the additions made towards bogus expenses

Mathiyazhagan Vinoth Kumar, Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 1670/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

adverting to the grounds and submissions made by the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to advert that there was no material seized or incriminating materials found during the search, unearthing any undisclosed income and therefore the Assessment had been wrongly completed u/s 153A ... ought to have seen that the addition having not been made on the basis of any incriminating material, initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act itself is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that proviso to clause

Mathiyazhagan Vinoth Kumar, Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 1669/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

adverting to the grounds and submissions made by the Appellant. 2. The CIT(A) failed to advert that there was no material seized or incriminating materials found during the search, unearthing any undisclosed income and therefore the Assessment had been wrongly completed u/s 153A ... ought to have seen that the addition having not been made on the basis of any incriminating material, initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act itself is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that proviso to clause

M/S. Utkarsh Orchardes Pvt. Ltd., Tiruvallur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1544/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1544/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

passing an order dated 20.03.2025. The ld.CIT(A) held that the pen drive found in the premises of Mr.Badri Narayan Kota would constitute incriminating material found during search. On merits of the case (as regards the cases relating to addition on allotment of preferential shares), it was contended before ld.CIT ... ld.CIT(A), assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had raised a legal ground (Ground No.1) stating there was no incriminating material found during the course of search and in the relevant appeal, assessment has become unabated. Therefore, the additions/disallowances made not based on incriminating material

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the Shri G.N.Anbuchezian & others on 05.02.2020. During the search proceedings, various incriminating materials were seized in which Shri G.N.Anbuchezhian had noted down the details of daily cash transactions, he had with so many parties that happened from ... notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 16.11.2022 and on 06.03.2023. The Assessing Officer, on examination of incriminating material seized vide annexure no. ANN/PP/RA/LS/S-30 from Shri. Aravindan Ramalingam at No. AA-35, 3rd Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 and loose sheet seized

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the Shri G.N.Anbuchezian & others on 05.02.2020. During the search proceedings, various incriminating materials were seized in which Shri G.N.Anbuchezhian had noted down the details of daily cash transactions, he had with so many parties that happened from ... notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 16.11.2022 and on 06.03.2023. The Assessing Officer, on examination of incriminating material seized vide annexure no. ANN/PP/RA/LS/S-30 from Shri. Aravindan Ramalingam at No. AA-35, 3rd Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 and loose sheet seized

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground raised in this regard is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4065/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant S. Ghumare, AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

personal expenses. The ld. AR also raised the legal contention that the addition towards personal expenses is not Ms. Geetha Mehra based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but is merely for the reason that the cash withdrawal from the bank account are less. Accordingly ... Capital Gain as unexplained and no show-cause notice was issued to the assessee in this regard. The ld. AR reiterated that no incriminating material with regard to the sale is found during the course of search since the assessee has substantiated each sale by proper documentary evidences such

M/S. Avanish Orchardes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee’s are partly-allowed

ITA 1796/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1791/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan: Aaica 8327R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, (Studio N), Sy No.70, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Narne Nagar, Beside Lancohills, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Pan: Aafcb 7171D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) held that the pen drive found in the premises of Mr. Badri Narayan Kota would constitute incriminating material found during search. On merits of the case ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 6 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 (as regards the cases relating to addition on increase ... preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee had raised a common legal ground (Ground No.2) in all the appeals stating there was no incriminating material found during the ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 7 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 course of search and in the relevant appeals, assessments have become unabated. Therefore, the additions/disallowances

M/S. Chittaswarup Agro Farming Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee’s are partly-allowed

ITA 1794/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1791/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan: Aaica 8327R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, (Studio N), Sy No.70, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Narne Nagar, Beside Lancohills, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Pan: Aafcb 7171D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) held that the pen drive found in the premises of Mr. Badri Narayan Kota would constitute incriminating material found during search. On merits of the case ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 6 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 (as regards the cases relating to addition on increase ... preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee had raised a common legal ground (Ground No.2) in all the appeals stating there was no incriminating material found during the ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 7 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 course of search and in the relevant appeals, assessments have become unabated. Therefore, the additions/disallowances

M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee’s are partly-allowed

ITA 1792/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1791/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan: Aaica 8327R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, (Studio N), Sy No.70, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Narne Nagar, Beside Lancohills, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Pan: Aafcb 7171D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) held that the pen drive found in the premises of Mr. Badri Narayan Kota would constitute incriminating material found during search. On merits of the case ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 6 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 (as regards the cases relating to addition on increase ... preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee had raised a common legal ground (Ground No.2) in all the appeals stating there was no incriminating material found during the ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 7 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 course of search and in the relevant appeals, assessments have become unabated. Therefore, the additions/disallowances

M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee’s are partly-allowed

ITA 1791/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1791/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan: Aaica 8327R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, (Studio N), Sy No.70, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Narne Nagar, Beside Lancohills, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Pan: Aafcb 7171D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) held that the pen drive found in the premises of Mr. Badri Narayan Kota would constitute incriminating material found during search. On merits of the case ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 6 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 (as regards the cases relating to addition on increase ... preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee had raised a common legal ground (Ground No.2) in all the appeals stating there was no incriminating material found during the ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 7 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 course of search and in the relevant appeals, assessments have become unabated. Therefore, the additions/disallowances

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

levied for concealment of particulars of income. 10. The assessee, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO submitted that no incriminating material, documents, or valuable articles evidencing any undisclosed income relatable to A.Y.2015-16 were found or seized during the course of the search and seizure operation ... upon various judicial pronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that incriminating material or documents must be unearthed during the course of search, and that such material must form the very foundation of the assessment framed u/s.153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1654/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

levied for concealment of particulars of income. 10. The assessee, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO submitted that no incriminating material, documents, or valuable articles evidencing any undisclosed income relatable to A.Y.2015-16 were found or seized during the course of the search and seizure operation ... upon various judicial pronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that incriminating material or documents must be unearthed during the course of search, and that such material must form the very foundation of the assessment framed u/s.153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

levied for concealment of particulars of income. 10. The assessee, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO submitted that no incriminating material, documents, or valuable articles evidencing any undisclosed income relatable to A.Y.2015-16 were found or seized during the course of the search and seizure operation ... upon various judicial pronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that incriminating material or documents must be unearthed during the course of search, and that such material must form the very foundation of the assessment framed u/s.153A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1652/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

levied for concealment of particulars of income. 10. The assessee, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO submitted that no incriminating material, documents, or valuable articles evidencing any undisclosed income relatable to A.Y.2015-16 were found or seized during the course of the search and seizure operation ... upon various judicial pronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that incriminating material or documents must be unearthed during the course of search, and that such material must form the very foundation of the assessment framed u/s.153A