← 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

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune, Pmt Building Pune vs. Jaiprakash Pravinchandra Shroff, Pune

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

ITA 1893/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1893/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Circle-2, Pune. Vs. Jaiprakash Pravinchandra Shroff, 1215/2, Pankaj, Apte Road, Pune- 411004. Pan : Aceps9112P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Assessee By Shri V. L. Jain : Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified Taking The View That There Has Been Apparent Error In Filing Return Of Income Without Clearly Rebutting The Findings Of The Assessing Officer? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Concluding That Rs.41,68,46,544/- Is The Correct Capital Balance Whereas The Assessee Himself Has Declared Rs.77,38,41,557/- As His Capital Balance In His Itr Without Clear Findings & Reasoning.

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)

requested to clarify as to why the difference amount should not be added to your income as enhanced income as enhanced capital out of undisclosed income.” 4. In reply to above notice, the assessee submitted before the AO that his capital as at As at As per Business

Indumati Hp Gas Gramin Vitrak, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1362/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1362/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indumati Hp Gas Gramin Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Vitrak, Kolhapur. A/P Kasaba Beed, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur- 416011. Pan : Aaffi4054H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak & : Shri Mayuresh Doshi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,02,29,400/- U/S 69A Of The Act When The Assessee Has Explained The Sources Of The Amount Deposited. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,02,29,400/- As Entire Amount Deposited In Bank Without Considering The Withdrawals From The Bank Account.

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act on a total income of Rs.3,03,29,400/-. The above assessed income includes undisclosed income of Rs.3,03,29,400/- liable to be taxed as per section 115BBE of the IT Act. 4. After considering the reply of the assessee ... authority is in the view that, the 3 addition made by the Assessing officer amounting to Rs 3,03,29,400/- on account of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is correct and thus UPHELD.” 5. It is this order against which the assessee

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

held categorically that AO ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 has the power to reassess the return of the assessee not only for the undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that as already available at the time of original assessment ... other words, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 551/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

held categorically that AO ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 has the power to reassess the return of the assessee not only for the undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that as already available at the time of original assessment ... other words, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 549/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

held categorically that AO ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 has the power to reassess the return of the assessee not only for the undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that as already available at the time of original assessment ... other words, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 548/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

held categorically that AO ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 has the power to reassess the return of the assessee not only for the undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that as already available at the time of original assessment ... other words, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 241/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.241, 242 & 248/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Mr. Rameshwer Das, Vs Dcit, 5873, Top Floor, Central Circle-3, Malka Ganj Chowk, New Delhi. Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. Pan: Aaapd2587R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 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.38/2019-20, 39/2019-20 & 40/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeals Before It Against The Orders Dated 30.12.2018 Passed U/S 153C R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Central Circle-03, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

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

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

prejudice to above, it is submitted that the assessee in the statement dt. 23.09.2017 recorded in search has offered income of Rs.1.20 crores towards undisclosed income from M/s Raja Bricks (PB 36). AO has made addition for the same in AY 2017-18. The same is confirmed ... flats belonging to other parties. AO justified in rejecting the books of accounts. However, entire premium charged by assessee cannot be treated as undisclosed income for block period because AO had not proved by bringing material on record that assessee did make any investment to make the alleged unaccounted receipts/sales

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

prejudice to above, it is submitted that the assessee in the statement dt. 23.09.2017 recorded in search has offered income of Rs.1.20 crores towards undisclosed income from M/s Raja Bricks (PB 36). AO has made addition for the same in AY 2017-18. The same is confirmed ... flats belonging to other parties. AO justified in rejecting the books of accounts. However, entire premium charged by assessee cannot be treated as undisclosed income for block period because AO had not proved by bringing material on record that assessee did make any investment to make the alleged unaccounted receipts/sales