“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

Ashish Kamalakar Vaidya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 299/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarashish Kamalakar Vaidya Vs. Ito – 22(1)(2) C/Of C-304, Eastern Court, Room No. 308, Pirmal Junction Of Tejpal & Chamber, Lal Baug, Parleshwar Road, Vile Parle Parel, Mumbai. East, Mumbai – 400057. Pan/Gir No. Ahopv0333J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 154Section 250Section 48

assessee. Secondly, while computing the capital gains, the AO erroneously considered the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000 as the assessee’s undisclosed income. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, the assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification

Shrikant Sharma, Dhamdha, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 169/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shrikant Sharma Village: Birjhapur, Taluka : Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Cayps4948D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

held that where the quantum has been remanded to the A.O, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the A.O. In the present case the concerned authority shall be Ld. 5 Shrikant Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward

International Customer Related Management Services Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Mohali

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

ITA 557/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,56,748/- made by the Ld. AO by erroneously holding the rent receipts as undisclosed income of the appellant. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition ... Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,192/- made by Ld. AO by erroneously holding the interest income as undisclosed income of the appellant. 6. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO and then

Vijay Lakshmi Mittal, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 816/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.816/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Mittal Ito, Ward No. 7(5), House No. 123, Green Park Civil Ludhiana - 141001 बनाम/ Vs. Lines, Ludhiana. 141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abmpm-0926-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar (Ca) & Ms Deepali Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29-11-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-12-2019. The Only Dispute In The Appeal Is Applicable Rate Of Tax. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar (CA) &For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

Kalyan Yojana, 2016’ (PMGKY) has been proposed in the Bill. The declarant under this regime shall be required to pay tax @ 30% of the undisclosed income, and penalty @10% of the undisclosed income. Further, a surcharge to be called ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Cess’ @33% of tax is also proposed ... levied. In addition to tax, surcharge and penalty (totaling to approximately 50%), the declarant shall have to deposit 25% of undisclosed income in a Deposit Scheme to be notified by the RBI under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme, 2016’. This amount is proposed to be utilised

Shri Ganesh Madhukar Kamthe, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), Pune

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

ITA 2416/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

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

Rs.35,39,600/-. A perusal of the details furnished by the assessee shows that he has declared an amount of Rs.14,45,309/- as undisclosed income for assessment year 2013-14 on which he has paid the taxes. The challans and certificate issued by the department are already available

Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2137/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

assessed on basis of estimation, it would not be appropriate to simultaneously rely on such rejected books of account, for the purposes of adding undisclosed income by rejecting some of purchases. 20.3 In the case of Dhiraj R Rungta 140 taxmann.com 284 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court upheld

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2119/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji vs. Sanjay Ghodawat Buildcon LLP, Chipri

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

ITA 1337/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Arvind DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth GS

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 263Section 40Section 46A(3)Section 57

assessment of income is done as per computation sheet and the sum payable is determined as per the demand notice. 9. Assessee has undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,90,58,992/- during the year as per the provisions of the IT Act. Hence, penalty proceedings

M/S. Kishor D Naik (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 5587/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

satisfaction note recorded by the assessing officer, it has been clearly recorded that the documents seized during the search indicate undisclosed income of the appellant. In view of these facts, the second contention of the appellant that two separate satisfaction notes were not recorded in this case, does not have

DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4707/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi - CAFor Respondent: Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

this section is that the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the total income of the aforesaid period which includes disclosed and undisclosed income. Therefore, the new provisions has given wide powers to the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years falling ... prior to the initiation of search, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, found during the course of search. For this purpose, the restrictions imposed on the Assessing Officer by way of sections

West Coast Diagnostic Centre & Nursing Home, Palghar vs. CIT(A), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 148/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeewest Coast Diagnostic Centre Vs Cit(A), Pune-11 & Nursing Home, Aayakar Bhavan, 12, Sadhu Vaswani Main Road, Masoli, Dahanu Road, Pune-411011 Road, Dist. Palghar – 401 602 Pan : Aabfw4712E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 250

have recorded 12 ITA 148/Mum/2024 West Coast Diagnostic and Nursing Home findings that expose the assesse's shifting stand and reinforce the conclusion of undisclosed income. There is no material on record that rebuts the evidence gathered during the survey on the contrary, all presumptions of law (per Section 292C ... perused the material available on record. During the course of the survey proceedings, the assessee declared an amount of Rs.85,88,540/- as undisclosed income. However, during the assessment proceedings and also before this Bench, the assessee submitted a reconciliation statement, explaining that the earlier declaration was based solely

Arjun Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 42/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144

available on record. Since the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 12,60,500/-, the same were treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and thereby the same was determined as per provisions of section 144/147 of the Act and thereby the order was passed

Chandalal Verma, Kota vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kota

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

ITA 617/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, &

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 292CSection 69C

facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.61,66,000/- on account of alleged undisclosed income as per documents found seized marked as Annexure-AS, Exhibit-2, Pg. 61, 62, 64, Exhibit-44 Pg1, 2, Exhibit-45 Pg-1 and Exhibit-49 Pg16

Chandalal Verma, Kota vs. Acitdcit, Central Circle, Kota

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

ITA 388/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, &

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 292CSection 69C

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Bharat Associates, Bundi vs. ACIT (OSD), Bundi

ITA 1293/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbharat Associates, Gayatri Nagar, Bundi, Bundi 323001. Pan No. Aamfb 3655N ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244ASection 250Section 292CSection 37(1)Section 40

case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 2. Rs. 62,28,947/- as undisclosed income: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in erroneously confirming the addition made ... 133A of the Act. The assessee declared Rs. 97,21,000/- during the survey operations, but the assessee in its return declared an undisclosed income of Rs. 97,21,000/-and claimed expenses on account of construction amounting to Rs. 62,28,497/-. The case of the assessee was selected

Satish Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Mittal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

premises of the Harsh Group. Residential premises of the assessee was also covered in this exercise vide search dated:23.01.2013. The assessee had accepted undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 10 Cr. In his statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act. Notice

Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer5(4), Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 75/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 115BSection 69A

stated that if he could not produce the documentary evidence till 05.11.2019, then such amount may be treated as his undisclosed income and added to his total income. The assessee has taken sufficient time to furnish the information but he was not able to furnish the supportive evidence with regard

Shri Ramesh Singh Rana, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 576/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 133(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Rs.31,52,022/- on account of net profit was made by the Assessing Officer. Further additions of Rs.24,91,996/- on account of undisclosed income in the bank account; addition of Rs.4,41,902/- on account of undisclosed TDS; addition of Rs.2,19,999/- on account of insurance premium amount

(Late) Audinarayana Reddy Althuri Rep.by L/R Mahesh Reddy Althuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 39/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA D K ChhablaniFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata shows that the Directors and other family members of AMR India Limited have used penny stock to route their undisclosed income by booking long term capital gains through a company M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited managed by Shri Anil Kumar Khemkha. Subsequently, a search ... assessee from sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited is bogus in nature which was used to re-route the undisclosed income of the assessee and, therefore, denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act and made addition of Rs.5