← All Phrases

“undisclosed income”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A9,092 judgments

The decision most relied on for undisclosed income is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on undisclosed income

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.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia
352 ITR 493 · 2013 · High Court
537
citing judgments

Section 153A can be invoked to reassess income for all years under consideration prior to a search, even if returns for those years were processed under Section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer has the power to reassess total income in such cases without fetters.

CIT v. P. Mohanakala
291 ITR 278 · 2007 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

Society v. UOI
394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court
493
citing judgments

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa
386 ITR 483 · 2016 · High Court
416
citing judgments

If no incriminating material is found during a search operation regarding a particular issue, then no addition can be made concerning that issue in an assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing undisclosed income

Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3246/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

contained therein without being selective as per the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining "Undisclosed Income" of the appellant on estimation basis when the entire seized material gathered during the extensive searches carried out by the Department was before ... there was no scope to resort to estimation. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the "Undisclosed Income" of the appellant@ 70% of the total receipts recorded in the seized material without any basis. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the hypothetical addition made by the Assessing

Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3245/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

contained therein without being selective as per the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining "Undisclosed Income" of the appellant on estimation basis when the entire seized material gathered during the extensive searches carried out by the Department was before ... there was no scope to resort to estimation. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the "Undisclosed Income" of the appellant@ 70% of the total receipts recorded in the seized material without any basis. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the hypothetical addition made by the Assessing

Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3244/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

contained therein without being selective as per the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining "Undisclosed Income" of the appellant on estimation basis when the entire seized material gathered during the extensive searches carried out by the Department was before ... there was no scope to resort to estimation. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the "Undisclosed Income" of the appellant@ 70% of the total receipts recorded in the seized material without any basis. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the hypothetical addition made by the Assessing

Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3243/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

contained therein without being selective as per the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining "Undisclosed Income" of the appellant on estimation basis when the entire seized material gathered during the extensive searches carried out by the Department was before ... there was no scope to resort to estimation. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the "Undisclosed Income" of the appellant@ 70% of the total receipts recorded in the seized material without any basis. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the hypothetical addition made by the Assessing

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 566/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 153CSection 153D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 565/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. D. Anand, Advocate Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. 05.05.2025 27.06.2025 आदेश /Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

Section 153CSection 153D

handing it over to the AO of that other person. d. The seized document must be incriminating in nature, leading to the discovery of undisclosed income in the hands of the other person. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears ... 567/Chny/2023 a. To protect third parties from arbitrary assessments based on mere suspicion; b. To ensure that seized material has clear nexus with alleged undisclosed income of such person; c. To prevent roving and fishing inquiries in the guise of proceedings u/s.153C. Thus, the burden lies entirely on the Revenue

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 563/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: आदेश /Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 153CSection 153D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Kundan Rice Mills Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 593/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, E-4, Industrial Area, Central Circle 14, Panipat, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh, CIT (DR) &
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

earned an extra profit of Rs, 55,79,558/- (i.e. 2% of Rs. 27,89,77,900/-) which is to be considered as alleged undisclosed income; 3. That the order dated 12.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, New Delhi is against ... earned on extra profit of Rs. 49,02,745/-(i.e. 2% of Rs. 24,51,37,226/-) which is an be considered as alleged undisclosed income. 3 That the order dated 13.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi is against

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Haryana

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

ITA 573/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, E-4, Industrial Area, Central Circle 14, Panipat, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh, CIT (DR) &
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

earned an extra profit of Rs, 55,79,558/- (i.e. 2% of Rs. 27,89,77,900/-) which is to be considered as alleged undisclosed income; 3. That the order dated 12.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, New Delhi is against ... earned on extra profit of Rs. 49,02,745/-(i.e. 2% of Rs. 24,51,37,226/-) which is an be considered as alleged undisclosed income. 3 That the order dated 13.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi is against

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Haryana

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

ITA 548/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, E-4, Industrial Area, Central Circle 14, Panipat, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Central Circle 14, E-4, Industrial Area, New Delhi Panipat, Haryana Pin: 132 103 Pan No. Aaack7098P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh, CIT (DR) &
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

earned an extra profit of Rs, 55,79,558/- (i.e. 2% of Rs. 27,89,77,900/-) which is to be considered as alleged undisclosed income; 3. That the order dated 12.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, New Delhi is against ... earned on extra profit of Rs. 49,02,745/-(i.e. 2% of Rs. 24,51,37,226/-) which is an be considered as alleged undisclosed income. 3 That the order dated 13.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi is against

Ambey Laboratories Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 2334/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanambey Laboratories Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2), Ground Floor, Property No.555, Delhi. Tarla Mohalla Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaaca4317R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 31.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 04.11.2017 Declaring Loss Of Rs.15,30,39,,439/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. 5. Once the Lender confirms their transaction with the Appellant company, there remain no basis for drawing adverse inference in the hand