“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

Provash Adhikari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 46(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 93,57,008/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged undisclosed income u/s 68. 7. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 2. The brief ... reproduced as under: “Information received from DDIT (Inv.) Koi. regarding huge cash deposits about Sri Provash Adhikari during the Asstt. Year 2011-12 undisclosed income of the assesse through unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs. 93,57,008/-. In this case-initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of I.T. Act 1961. Necessary

Raghav Commodities, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

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

present case, ld. AO has failed to bring on record any asset having value of more than Rs. 50 lacs earned by alleged undisclosed income i.e. loss in present case. Hence the transaction in the nature of alleged fictitious profit/ loss, disallowance of expenses or unrecorded expenses is not covered

Mahendra Tulsidas Thakker, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3885/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

assessee has made declaration but proves that assessee has neither earned such income nor any incriminating material was found during the search relating to undisclosed income then no addition can be made. 10 Mr. Mahendra Tulsidas Thakker 17. We have also gone through the judgment of ITAT, Mumbai ... assessee before Settlement Commission. We find that no incriminating material was found during the course of search action substantiating that assessee has actually earned undisclosed income. Therefore, just because assessee has offered additional income before Settlement Commission, no addition can be made without basis. Hence, the addition made

Standard Hr Solutions, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4100/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

appellant/assessee. 4.2 Further, the Ld. AR submitted as under: “6.3. If the amount of Rs.68,03,907/- added by A.O. as alleged undisclosed income on account of alleged excess credit by Mahindra and short debited by appellant is accepted, the books of accounts of assessee would show receivable of Rs.73

Divesh Kumar, Bareilly vs. ACIT Central, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 389/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

For Appellant: None (Adj application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 127Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69A

whom fertilizers have been sold earlier on credit. The amount of Rs.2,66,000.00 is business income and not in any kind of undisclosed income.” 5. In the appeal following grounds of appeal have been raised. (i) That the Assessing Officer erred’ in making addition on account of Cash seized ... been included in the Return of Income without 8Ppreciating that the income which has already been declared in return Cannot be deemed to be undisclosed income as per Section 68/69A of the Act and therefore Section 115BBE is not applicable in this case. It is requested to place the reply

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Yagneshkumar Gandhi Prop. of Ms Astmangal, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 959/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

claimed that gross receipt cannot be treated as income and only net profit on such receipt is required to be treated. Hence any undisclosed income computed without following the principle of real income and without corroborative material/evidence brought on record and on the basis of mere hypothesis would be tantamount ... computing of notional undisclosed income which would be against the provisions of the Act. Thus the assessee submitted the details of the gross profit and net profit for the last three years as under and requested to estimate the income:- Asst. Years Gross Profit Net Profit

Abdulrahim Yakubbhai Gudala, Dahod Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchamahal (Now DCIT, Circle Anand), Anand, Gujarat

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

ITA 1394/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 158BSection 234ASection 234BSection 69Section 69A

calculated under the provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act. 2. It is pertinent to note here that section 158B(b) defining undisclosed income refers to not only assets found but also income based on entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions representing income

Keshava Reddy Nagireddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1), Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.463 & 464/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Keshava Reddy Nagireddy Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adcpn1614N] Circle (1) Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 05/03/2024, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

source of cash deposited in his bank account maintained with Canara bank and offer the said income to tax (ii) Rs.2,47,443/- as undisclosed income with regard to income earned from interest (iii) Rs.14,37,703/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act as the assessee failed

Keshava Reddy Nagireddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1), Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in arriving at the conclusion that cash deposited by the appellant during demonetization period is its undisclosed income and in order to evade tax liability the appellant has attempted to disclose it under the garb of cash sales. Such conclusion by the department ... been able to show any discrepancy in the records submitted by the appellant and therefore, allegation that the appellant had deposited its undisclosed income in the bank account during demonetization in order to evade tax liability is untenable and baseless as making cash sales and depositing it in bank account

Dhanpriya Enterprises LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 30(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4547/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhridhanpriya Enterprises Llp V/S. Ito, 30(1)(3), Mumbai B-401 Raghav Building, बनाम Bandra Kurla Complex, Film City Road, Mumbai-400051 Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahfd5779N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Karpe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

made on account of on-money paid to the extent of Rs. 15,86,000/- is not justified. Accordingly, the addition on account of undisclosed income of Rs. 15,86,000/- is hereby deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open

DCIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Dmg Finance Investment Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 3432/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Dmg Finance Investment Private Central Circle-15, Limited, New Delhi. Flat No.1, First Floor, Dakshineshwar, 10 Hailey Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd3459K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

they were not incriminating: “…From the above discussion, quite clearly it comes out that these documents cannot be said to be indicative of any undisclosed income. There is nothing unusual about these documents found with the company. In fact, these are statutory records which the company is obliged to maintain ... said assessment proceedings. From the above discussion, quite clearly it comes out that these documents cannot be said to be indicative of any undisclosed income. There is nothing unusual about these documents found with the company. In fact, these are statutory records which the company is obliged to maintain, particularly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 2276/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

hands of the assessee under section 69A of Income The Act, 1961. Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is initiated on account of undisclosed income detected during the search operation. [Unexplained Cash Rs. 2,00,00,000/-]” In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) knocked off the said addition of Rs.2.00 ... Rs.2.00 Crores given by the assessee for a plot did not materialize finally, so he got the said amount refunded back. Since this was undisclosed income; therefore, the same was surrendered as income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. Hence, separate addition on this score

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Venus Contractors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limine

ITA 730/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Venus Contractors Central Circle-26, Room Pvt.Ltd., 6, Biplabi, Ff, No.323, E-2, Ara Centre, Rash Behari Basu Jhandewalan Ext., Road, Kolkata, Delhi-110055. West Bengal-700001. Pan-Aaacv5396B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Ashok Jain, Ca, Ashu Goel, Ca & Naman Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2024 Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,85,00,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that the information was received by the ITO Ward-4, Rohtak on 25.03.2019 while the assessment order ... passed on 30.12.2014. DCIT vs Venus Contractors Pvt.Ltd. 3. As per ground of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of additions towards undisclosed income on merits. 4. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that legal defect in assumption of jurisdiction

ACIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad vs. Krishan Singla, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 8435/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 56(2)(viii)

assessments made under Section 143(1)(a) or 143(3) of the Act, 1961 and to re- assess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. 15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing ... High Court taking the view that the AO has the power to reassess the return of the assessee not only for the undisclosed income, which was found during the search operation but also with regard to material that was available at the time of original assessment does not require

DCIT Central Circle-I, Greater Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 6942/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

DCIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi vs. Charles (India) Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1911/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2011-12 Dcit Vs. M/S. Charles (India) Pvt. Ltd Central Circle – 08, Room No.603, 27, Weston Street, New Delhi Kolkata – 700 012 Tan/ Pan : Aabcc 0116 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Amit Goel, C.A. & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153A

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 ... assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original

Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri Ward, Ratnagiri

ITA 264/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

show from which sources the income was derived and as 4 ITA Nos.264 & 23/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 to why it should be treated as undisclosed income. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received through the accounting year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle 1, Kolhapur vs. Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Maharashtra

ITA 23/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

Venkatachalam Ganesan Ravichandran, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2414/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2414/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Venkatachalam Ganesan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ravichandran, 693/1A, Ravichandran Ward 2(4), Cotton Company, Dharapuram Road, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 608. [Pan: Adnpr9905P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016, inter alia, the Assessing Officer made addition of undisclosed income on account of the purchases claimed to be made since the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction from the creditor