← 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

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 4206/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

assessee for A.Y. 2008-09, hence it is estimated that assessee would have incurred about Rs.1.2 Lac as such foreign travel expenditure out of undisclosed income. Hence, for the A.Y.2008-09, the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amount to or is likely to amount Rs. 1 Lakh

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 3953/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

assessee for A.Y. 2008-09, hence it is estimated that assessee would have incurred about Rs.1.2 Lac as such foreign travel expenditure out of undisclosed income. Hence, for the A.Y.2008-09, the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amount to or is likely to amount Rs. 1 Lakh

ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1553/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

from various parties. Out of the balance amount of 77 lakhs a sum ofRs.42.74 lakhs remains un-reconciled as the assessee has already surrendered undisclosed income of Rs.50,20,000/- during F.Y. 2012- 13 on account of un-reconciled cash. Therefore, he may be given relief on account ... claimed the expenditure to the extent of Rs.2,48,79,002/- and the net balance amount of Rs.2,19,70,998/- was declared as undisclosed income. However, assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs.2,80,00,000/-. We observed that AO has noticed that assessee has declared unreconciled turnover from

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1011/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

from various parties. Out of the balance amount of 77 lakhs a sum ofRs.42.74 lakhs remains un-reconciled as the assessee has already surrendered undisclosed income of Rs.50,20,000/- during F.Y. 2012- 13 on account of un-reconciled cash. Therefore, he may be given relief on account ... claimed the expenditure to the extent of Rs.2,48,79,002/- and the net balance amount of Rs.2,19,70,998/- was declared as undisclosed income. However, assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs.2,80,00,000/-. We observed that AO has noticed that assessee has declared unreconciled turnover from

Garima Jain, Agra vs. ITO, Waed 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

confirming the impugned addition to the total income of the Appellant for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration as undisclosed income of the appellant of Rs.43,69,906/-under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income

Ashok Kumar Maloo, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 308/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.308/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Maloo Ground Floor, Halwai Line, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adtpm9149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Golechha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 151Section 154Section 44ASection 69A

learned authorities failed to appreciate the settled judicial precedents that cash sales duly explained by turnover patterns and business nature cannot be treated as undisclosed income. 7. The rectification order passed u/s 154 is bad in law as it seeks to change the nature of assessment without addressing the pending

Jai Kumar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jai Kumar C/O. Jyoti Sales Corporation, Handi Para, Azad Chowk, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Atopk6732E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

explained the source of cash deposits in the bank account, therefore, the A.O treated the amount of Rs.11,71,105/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. 3. That the assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC wherein certain legal grounds have been raised along with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shanta Techno Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 155/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating to the purchases to 25% of the total purchases. The said decision was confirmed by this Court as well. On consideration of the matter

Raj Kumar Sharma, Patna vs. ITO Ward (5), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/PAT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Jyoti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

submission that admittedly the assessee had not provided all the details before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer treated the entire purchase as undisclosed income of the assessee. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee had produced the 2 evidence of loan of Rs.16.10

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Himatnagar, Himatnagar vs. Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 934/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Ward-1, बनाम/ Asian Parivar, V/S. Himatnagar. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D & C.O No.18/Ahd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Asian Parivar, बनाम/ Ward-1, V/S. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar. Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

through a registered broker. The Revenue has not brought any independent material to discredit the assessee’s explanation or establish that the funds represented undisclosed income of the assessee. In absence of any evidence of collusion, pre-arrangement, or accommodation, the explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be rejected merely

Vinodbhai Laxmanbhai Pithiya, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (Previously the ITO- Ward-1(2)(5)), Vadodara

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

ITA 919/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 26A

claiming business loss due to valuation of his holdings in shares as on 31.03.2016 without any true and correct evidences. Hence, retraction of admitted undisclosed income of Rs.99,03,460/- is rejected. The amount of admitted undisclosed income of Rs.99,03,460/- is brought to tax vide this order. Accordingly

Aagam Realty Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3541/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, CA
Section 234

Officer observed that sale consideration with respect to one property was not reflected by the assessee amounting to Rs.40.25 lakhs, which was added as undisclosed income of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that against the income from sale of property amounting

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Satvinder Kaur, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3185/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalassistant Commissioner Of Vs. Satvinder Kaur Income Tax S-493, Greater Kailsah E-2, Block, Pratyaksh Kar Part-Ii, Bhawan, Dr. Shyama New Delhi Prasad Mukherjee Civic Pan: Aaxpk8350J Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate V. K. Sabharwal, Advocate Rajiv Kumar & Ca S. S. Aggarwal Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal/National Faceless Appeal

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,26,62,169/- on account undisclosed income with respect to trading in Penny Stock by ignoring the details findings made by the AO in the assessment order. Also, the assessee failed to prove

Dushyant Bhati, Noida vs. PCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri SomilFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154BSection 263

under Section 263/147/144B of the Act in this case as held in this order and add an amount of Rs.1,74,19,000/- as undisclosed income under Section 69 of the Act. 4. Ld. AO vide order dated 30.01.2024, accepted the returned income. 5. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

appellant itself. Thus, on merits too the AO has not been successful in establishing that the impugned amount is in fact the undisclosed income of the appellant. Therefore, the addition cannot be sustained on merits as well. 4.2.3 It is settled law that in a case of reopening of assessment

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Belisma Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs M/S. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, Ss House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Pan-Aadcb9647C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

appellant itself. Thus, on merits too the AO has not been successful in establishing that the impugned amount is in fact the undisclosed income of the appellant. Therefore, the addition cannot be sustained on merits as well. 4.2.3. It is settled law that in a case of reopening of assessment

Bhoop Singh Poonia, Nohar vs. ITO Ward, Nohar

ITA 405/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.S.Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)

According to the AO, there were discrepancies such as non-maintenance of books of accounts, Stock Register, Production Register etc. and assessee has surrendered undisclosed income of Rs.70 lacs for taxation which assessee has offered in his return and paid the taxes also. In the return, assessee has shown Rs.25 ... reads as follows: " Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search & seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned

Pramukh Metal Quarry, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On 07.04.2025 & Which Read As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

shown in the books of accounts becomes unexplained money. The ld AO has to demonstrate the same with the evidence that the same is undisclosed Income. As such the provision of the section 68 is not applicable at all to the appellant's case. It is submitted that neither ... manage his Business Affair and the Assessing Officer in not concerned with it. The ld. AO has not given any details regarding source of undisclosed income and merely stated that your appellant has deposited cash from undisclosed sources which is without any basis and arbitrary. The ld. AO has neither

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1238/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 56(2)(x)

proceedings under clause (b) of subsection 1A of section271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated herewith. As the income falls under the category undisclosed income therefore Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act, 1961 is also initiated separately herewith.” 14. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 5179/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

circumstances of the case, we hold that the Id.CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore delete the addition of Rs.33,15,263. 28. Since, we have deleted the main ... books of accounts it is for the Revenue to prove that the credit found in the books of accounts of the assessee is the undisclosed income of the assessee. 16.8 In the case of Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd 19 taxmann.com 26/206, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held: “....once adequate