“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

Lcc Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhuj vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 259/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

records, it is seen that you have filed your return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 17,34,57,900/- which includes undisclosed income of Rs.2,25,00,000/- admitted during survey action, which is shown as regular income and paid tax @ normal rate instead of special rate ... While framing the assessment order the Faceless AO has not invoked the provision of Section 69A of the Act for the undisclosed income admitted by you during survey action. The 'Faceless AO has failed to treat income of Rs.2,25,00,000/- admitted by you during the, survey action

Sunrise Realconsultancy Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

ITA 1308/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

confirming the addition of Rs.31,17,181/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the entire commission receipt of Rs.31,17,181/- as undisclosed income of the assessee company without considering the submission of the assessee. 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter ... amounting to Rs.31,17,181/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Υ. 2013-14. Hence the transaction of commission / brokerage remains undisclosed income and purchase of Motor Vehicles made by assessee company remains unexplained investment. The above information is as per NMS data/details under "P-Z category". Therefore

Sunrise Realconsultancy Private Limited, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1307/JPR/2024[2013-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

addition of Rs. 31,17,181/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treating the entire commission receipt of Rs. 31,17,181/- as undisclosed income of the assessee company without considering the submission of the assessee. 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter ... amounting to Rs.31,17,181/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. Hence the transaction of commission / brokerage remains undisclosed income and purchase of Motor Vehicles made by assessee company remains unexplained investment. The above information is as per NMS data/details under "P-Z category". Therefore

Pankajsinh Sabubhai Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 430/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250

during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add the entire amount of credits / deposits in the hands of the assessee, as his undisclosed income. Accordingly, looking into the assessee’s said of facts, we are of the considered view that order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is opposed ... little education, assessee has remained cooperative all throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings, entire amount of cash deposits and credits have been added as undisclosed income of the assessee without giving the credit of withdrawals made by the assessee from the same bank Mr. Pankajsinh Sabubhai Vaghela vs. ITO Asst.Year

Delta Developers, Dahod vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Dahod

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

ITA 336/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 251Section 68Section 69A

cash deposits and also failed in establishing the identity of the loan creditor, he added the sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee under Section 69A and 68 of the Act, respectively. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) issued as many as six notices

Rajagopal Upadhyaya, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1984/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dan D’Silva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

however he could not explain the source of cash with any documentary evidence. That the assessee himself admitted and accepted the seized cash as undisclosed income in his hands. 12.1 The AO on perusal of the letter submitted by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singhi to the investigation unit for disclosure ... total income of the assessee. 13. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT-A and submitted the details of undisclosed income admitted and offered for tax by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singhi for the A.Y. 2011-12 through letter filed during the assessment proceedings. 14. The assessee also

Shefali Aggarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 239/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.239 & 240/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shefali Aggarwal, Vs Dcit, 5873, Top Floor, Central Circle-3, Malka Ganj Chowk, New Delhi. Jawahar Nagar, Delhi – 110 007 Pan: Abjpa4649K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 19.11.2019 & 31.10.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeals No.43/2019-20 & 44/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeals Before It Against The Orders Dated 26.12.2018 Passed U/S 153C R.W.S. 153A & U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 3

jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act, which assessee alleged to be on a satisfaction note not having relevant material to show the extent of undisclosed income for relevant years we find there is an additional ground raised by the assessee on the basis that the approval granted u/s 153D

M/S. Frugal Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 640/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.638 To 641/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwer Prashad Painuly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 292CSection 69

which comes to Rs. 7,27,080/- is hereby held as undisclosed interest income for the year under consideration. Total undisclosed income and advances for the year are accordingly assessed at Rs. 19,56,580/- against those assessed by AO at Rs. 40,66,580/-. The appellant thereby gets ... evident from the statement quoted above that the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- has been invested by the assessee out of her undisclosed income and same is being added to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment made by him during the year

Kalu Ram Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 222/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 69A

same is hereby added in return of income of the assessee and charged to income tax as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE trading undisclosed income under the head of other sources of the previous year relevant to the AY 2017-18. 7. In view of the same, the total

Midas Golden Distilleries P. Ltd, Sriperumbudur vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2955/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2955/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)

point but not the sole basis for drawing any conclusions. In the case of Harjeev Agarwal, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that undisclosed income cannot be computed merely on the basis of statements of an accused unless, the same is supported by credible evidence on record. Again ... favour of the assessee, holding that the materials collected during the survey under Section 133A cannot be taken into consideration while determining the undisclosed income in respect of block assessment as per section 158BB, as the same has no evidentiary value. 5.6. Again, when an identical question whether the material

Amit Kumar Chhabriya, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 150/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 150/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

Kishore Kumar b. [(2015)] 273 CTR 468 Madras], it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "where assessee himself stated about his undisclosed income in sworn statement recorded during search, addition could be made on the basis of admission without scrutinizing documents. SLP against the decision is dismissed

Amit Meharda, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 142(1)Section 69A

available and as to why the cash was deposited again in the bank account. Thus, the AO treated the amount of cash deposit as undisclosed income of the appellant and added the same. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition as according to him, the assessee is not supposed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

coordinate with each other and also with the AO of M/s. Vista Dealcom P Ltd. in order to collect evidences for further taxation of undisclosed income of these beneficiaries used for taking entry from M/s. Vista Dealcom Private Limited”, it was further directed as “the facts mentioned in this letter

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Under the facts and Circumstances , The Learned A.O. has erred in law on facts in making the addition of Rs. 2585837.00 treating it as undisclosed income of the Assessee and that too without providing any adverse material on record and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case ... survey operation – regarding 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

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 611/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Lic Building vs. Madhu Chordia, C-Scheme

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1525/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

ld.CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,30,00,000/-u/s69 made by the AOon account of undisclosed income disregarding the facts that the addition was based on the incriminating material found and seized in the laptop and there remains no use of physical copy of agreement ... ld.CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,45,65,000/- u/s 69 made by the AO on account of undisclosed income disregarding the facts that the addition was based on the incriminating material found and seized in the laptop and there remains no use of physical copy

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Lic Building vs. Madhu Chordia, C-Scheme

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Amrutbhai Kantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr DR

Section 69A

have no hesitation to say that assessee could have had Rs.2,82,500/- as cash in hand. Hence, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court

Shree Anand Mangal Vidhya Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2, Pune

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

ITA 69/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.69/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Vs Ito, Exemption Shree Anand Mangal Vidhya Pasarak Mandal, Ward 2, Pune S. No. 60/1/A, Behind Utkarsha Washing Center, Bijalinagar, Chinchwad, Pune-411033 Maharashtra Pan-Aajts8143D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

when no assessment order was actually passed by him. 3]The Ld. AO/CIT(A) has erred in treating the amount of cash deposits as undisclosed income for the year even when it was duly accounted for the in the financials furnished during the assessment proceedings. 3.1] The Ld. AO/CIT

Roshan Lal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

sales proceeds of agricultural land have been deposited in the bank and hence the same cannot be treated as deposits made out of any undisclosed income. Addition under section 69A on account of unexplained money, thus, cannot be just simply made and the AO has done this by taking ... consideration in cash ("on-money") over and above the amount stated in the registered sale deed. The Assessing Officer treated this additional amount as undisclosed income and sought to tax it accordingly. 3.2. Judgment & Tribunal’s Observations: 22 Roshal Lal vs. ITO The ITAT Chennai held that any surplus money