“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

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. Dcitacit Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

objection for addition of the amount of ` 1,75,54,332, which was added to the total income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income from contract business and charged to tax accordingly. 3. Insofar as the disallowance under section 43B of the Act is concerned, the Assessing Officer

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

cross examine Jayesh Thakar D/o. Prabhav Industries. Though the assessee has made several request for the same. Hence the amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee in the absence of positive material brought by Revenue to prove that the amount in fact belonged to assessee ... substantial evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant-Tribunal justified in holding that the share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee under s. 68. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 68

cross examine Jayesh Thakar D/o. Prabhav Industries. Though the appellant has made several request for the same. Hence the amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of the appellant in the absence of positive material brought by Revenue to prove that the amount in fact belonged to appellant ... transfer of an amount of Rs. 1,07,350 to N, an employee of appellant in Bombay office, the amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of in the absence of positive material brought by Revenue to prove that the amount in fact belonged to appellant as the burden

Pancghvarnam Thangaraj, Port Blair vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(4), Port Blair

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1855/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1855/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pancghvarnam Thangaraj…….. ……..……………………....Appellant Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair, Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Island – 744102. [Pan: Aejpt7625M] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Port Blair…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar & Vidhi Ladia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To A Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay.

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

given by him to Shri Gopala Krishnanan from his undisclosed source of income. The assessee also disclosed Rs.21,00,000/- as his undisclosed income for the F.Y 2016-17 stating the income arose from hotel business. The assessee subsequently filed his return of income on 02.12.2017 declaring a total income ... account as required u/s 44AA due to presumptive taxation provision. Despite these explanations, the Assessing Officer treated the entire Rs.21,00,000/- as undisclosed income and adjusted Rs.6,00,000/- towards tax liability. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however

Seethrampalayam Dhandappagounder Chinnasamy, Tiruchengode vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2245/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mr.Chinthapalli Meher Chand

Section 133ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Mahesh Lingappa, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1400/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha .R, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69A

done this practice and therefore the deposit of SBN notes within the time prescribed by the Government could not be treated as undisclosed income. 6. The Section 69A of the IT Act which deals with unexplained money reads as follows: Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year ... cash deposits were given in the audited financial statements of the assessee and therefore the said deposits could not be treated as undisclosed income in order to treat the same as unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act. 10. Further, we find that the assessee had reported a total income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2152/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Central Circle, 1402/1403, Vidhyanchal Meerut Tower, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad Pan :Akypk3905E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Agarwal, Ca Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 153ASection 56(2)(vi)Section 68

credit-worthiness of parties and genuineness of transactions - Further, Assessing Officer had not brought on record any evidence to prove that said sum was undisclosed income of assessee Whether, on facts, impugned addition made undersection 68 on account of said amount received by assessee was unjustified and same ... Investor Company actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company so as to enable the total Investments to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. No interference is called for in the matter. Ground No.3 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. No other point is argued

Mahendrakumar Prahladbhai Vaghela, Mansa vs. ITO (Int. Txn)-1 - Ahmedabad, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar(Now Hon’Ble) & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

satisfactorily explained, the AO Mahendrakumar Prahladbhai Vaghela vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18 treated the unexplained sum of Rs. 18,74,511 as undisclosed income under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. In appeal ... Agarwal v. ITO in ITA. No. 53/JODH/2021, the ITAT held that mere time gap between withdrawals and deposits cannot be the reason for alleging undisclosed income. In the case of ITO v. Deepali Sehgal I.T.A .No.-5660/Del/2012 it was held that merely because there was a time gap between

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm..of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs.3,27,993/- u/sec.270A of the Act being 50% of tax sought to be evaded on such undisclosed income. We find the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced

Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.987/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Vs. Dy. Cit Industries Private Ltd Circle 1 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcb3413C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 6/8/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.5,80,424/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 40A(7)

section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.” 8. Therefore, no penalty shall be levied u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961, if the amount of income

Shantirani Samarathamal Dagriya, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-34 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3467/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 142Section 144Section 234ASection 234FSection 271ASection 69A

made under section 69 of the act, unless there is a cogent evidence to prove that the amount deposited in the bank account was undisclosed income that falls outside the bank statements filed by the assessee. Nothing on record to raise doubts Shantirani Saarathamal Dagriya; A. Y.2017-18 in this regard

DCIT, Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Manuvel Mezhukanal, New Delhi

ITA 1550/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Manuvel Mezhukanal, Central Circle-01, 209-10, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Ina Market, New Delhi. Pan: Ablpv5671Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.01.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10504/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle 53(1), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 68

Delhi in the case of CIT vs Kailash Jewellery House [09.04.2012] in which it was held that cash sales cannot be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The appellant also relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT (Visakhapatnam ... Patna High court held as under: “It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant

Gyan Prakash Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-10(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Gyan Prakash Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(4), B-189, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 92 (Pan: Adupg2697N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact toot the assessee had indulged in a dubious shore transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital 11 | P a g e gain. While so observing, the authorities held, that the assessee had not tendered ... garb of tax exempt / concessional tax rate capital gain by well organised network of entry providers with the sole motive to account for the undisclosed income for a certain consideration or commission. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the share transactions leading to Long Term Capital Gains

Pushpadevi Shivlal Rathi, Jalna vs. ITO Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 1995/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi &For Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 197Section 250Section 69A

surcharge and penalty referred to in section 184 and section 185 has been paid within the time specified under section 187, the undisclosed income shall be chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act in the previous year in which such declaration is made; (c)... 4. The aforesaid provision

Aditi Infrabuild and Services Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 30, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 726/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)

that assessee has under-stated its receipts on contract with DLI of Rs.6,21,67,854/-. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the addition as undisclosed income. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) considered the detailed submissions made

JCIT, (OSD) CC-1, Noida vs. IV County Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1357/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Aba Builders Ltd, Central Circle-1, Noida A-39, Sector-63, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacca1410H Jcit (Osd), Vs. Iv County Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-I, A-39, Sector-63, Noida, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacci9503M

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jhan, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

course of assessment proceedings. This retraction was communicated to the department more than 5 times during the post search proceedings and actual amount of undisclosed income was duly offered and due tax thereon was paid suo moto by the assessee. The assessee also placed reliance on CBDT Circular No. 286/2/2003-IT ... that the disclosure made by the assessee was an estimated figure which is also mentioned in the seized documents and the actual amount of undisclosed income also were mentioned in the very same seized documents with specific reference to estimated income, which stood ultimately offered to tax by the assessee

JCIT, (OSD) CC-1, Noida vs. Country Infrastructures Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1356/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jhan, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, Noida vs. Jai Kishore Totlani, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Department of Revenue i

ITA 1355/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

County Pvt. Ltd, A- 39 Sector 63 Noida on the basis of which Amit Modi director has admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.32,00,00,000/- for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 in the hands of directors and companies. 4. In view of search operation ... hearing filed detailed submissions. 6 ITA Nos.1176 /Del/2021 & Ors. On completion of proceedings, assessment proceedings addition of Rs.4,55,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income. During the search Rs.15.90 and addition of 15 lac on account of unexplained cash seized vide order dated 31/12/2018 were made

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, Noida vs. Ram Avtar Ramsisaria, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Department of Revenue i

ITA 1354/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

JCIT, (OSD) Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Puspahas Agrawal, Noida

In the result, the appeal of Department of Revenue i

ITA 1353/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)