← 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

Jesaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 8346/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. N.A. CIT(A) erred

Jesaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8345/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, L.d
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. N.A. CIT(A) erred ... case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material / evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice

Jesaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 8344/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, L.d
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. N.A. CIT(A) erred

Juararam Chogaji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 8193/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law
Section 153CSection 69

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material / evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice

Juararam Chogaji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8192/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law
Section 153CSection 69

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material / evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice

Juararam Chogaji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8191/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law
Section 153CSection 69

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material / evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice

Ummesalma Huzefa Ghadiali, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8187/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT
Section 132(4)Section 153C

passing the impugned assessment u/s 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, making the assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case ... erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making the addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search action, as per the grounds contained in the assessment order or otherwise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

Ummesalma Huzefa Ghadiali, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8186/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT
Section 132(4)Section 153C

passing the impugned assessment u/s 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, making the assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case ... erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making the addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search action, as per the grounds contained in the assessment order or otherwise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

Ummesalma Huzefa Ghadiali, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 8185/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and
Section 132(4)Section 153C

passing the impugned assessment u/s 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, making the assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case ... erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making the addition in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search action, as per the grounds contained in the assessment order or otherwise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

Jinal Akshay Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6737/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. This appeal is directed against the
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material / evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice ... dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section

Jinal Akshay Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6736/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. This appeal is directed against the
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

case of Hiranandani Group and related persons. Though, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not discussed in detail the nature of incriminating material / evidence available on record to indicate payment of on–money in cash by the assessee to M/s. Crescendo Associates, however, from the show cause notice ... dated 4th March 2015, which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it appears that the incriminating materials are in the form of pen drive found and seized from the residence of one of the employees of Hiranandani Group and a statement recorded under section

Jabra Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6642/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A)
Section 153CSection 69

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

Jabra Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6641/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A)
Section 153CSection 69

case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

Fayaz Mohammed, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1672/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, САFor Respondent: Smt.V Koteshwaramma, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69

such the AO has not assumed Jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that no incriminating material relating to assessee was possessed by A.O. who did assessments u/s 153A and on basis of that issuing of satisfaction u/s 153C is not valid ... ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in invoking provisions of sec 153C of the Act without there being any incriminating material found belonging to the appellant during the course of search at the premises of third person. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that

Fayaz Mohammed, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1671/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69

such the AO has not assumed Jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that no incriminating material relating to assessee was possessed by A.O. who did assessments u/s 153A and on basis of that issuing of satisfaction u/s 153C is not valid ... ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in invoking provisions of sec 153C of the Act without there being any incriminating material found belonging to the appellant during the course of search at the premises of third person. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1225/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

operations conducted under section 132 of the Act, in the case of Skill Promoters (P) Ltd. Further, during the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating material found reveals or pertaining to the assessee and therefore, the A.O of the searched person, has recorded satisfaction under section 153C ... light of incriminating material and found that the information contained therein has a bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2020-21. Thereafter, the A.O of the other person, the assessee recorded satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under section 153C

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1224/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

operations conducted under section 132 of the Act, in the case of Skill Promoters (P) Ltd. Further, during the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating material found reveals or pertaining to the assessee and therefore, the A.O of the searched person, has recorded satisfaction under section 153C ... light of incriminating material and found that the information contained therein has a bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2020-21. Thereafter, the A.O of the other person, the assessee recorded satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under section 153C

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1223/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA
Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 153BSection 153CSection 69

operations conducted under section 132 of the Act, in the case of Skill Promoters (P) Ltd. Further, during the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating material found reveals or pertaining to the assessee and therefore, the A.O of the searched person, has recorded satisfaction under section 153C ... light of incriminating material and found that the information contained therein has a bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2020-21. Thereafter, the A.O of the other person, the assessee recorded satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under section 153C

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1222/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

operations conducted under section 132 of the Act, in the case of Skill Promoters (P) Ltd. Further, during the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating material found reveals or pertaining to the assessee and therefore, the A.O of the searched person, has recorded satisfaction under section 153C ... light of incriminating material and found that the information contained therein has a bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2020-21. Thereafter, the A.O of the other person, the assessee recorded satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under section 153C

Bhagwanti Lalitkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8656/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153CSection 250Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not referred to any incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant; 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order by not appreciating that ... failed to appreciate that the addition is based solely on the uncorroborated statement of third party/parties and there is no tangible and incriminating material on record. The addition confirmed is bad-in-law and based on surmises, conjectures and unreliable evidences and liable to be deleted