← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2663/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2662, 2663 & 2664/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Income Tax, New No. 35 To 41, Old No. 28, Central Circle 2(1), Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai 600 007. [Pan:Adypa1209N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

revenue against the above appellate order in its order in ITA No. 1218/Chny/2023 dated 08.08.2024 confirmed the stand of the undersigned in treating the undisclosed income as business income and thereby dismissed the revenue appeal, 6.3.14 In view of the above discussions and various judicial decisions relied upon, the undersigned ... view that the action of the AO to treat the undisclosed income as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the appellant upon this issue are treated as allowed and the AO is hereby directed to treat the amount

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2662/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2662, 2663 & 2664/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Income Tax, New No. 35 To 41, Old No. 28, Central Circle 2(1), Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai 600 007. [Pan:Adypa1209N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

revenue against the above appellate order in its order in ITA No. 1218/Chny/2023 dated 08.08.2024 confirmed the stand of the undersigned in treating the undisclosed income as business income and thereby dismissed the revenue appeal, 6.3.14 In view of the above discussions and various judicial decisions relied upon, the undersigned ... view that the action of the AO to treat the undisclosed income as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the appellant upon this issue are treated as allowed and the AO is hereby directed to treat the amount