← 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

Varadarajan Baskaran, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2086/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2084, 2085, 2086, 2087 & 2088/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Varadarajan Baskaran, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Prop:- Shrinidhi Gold Bullion, Income Tax, 1080, 1St Floor, Srp Complex, Central Circle-2, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore Coimbatore 641 026. [Pan: Afypb 6208A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:-

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 69

During the course of search operation, some incriminating documents which that showed that he was involved in unaccounted money lending business and assessee had undisclosed Income spread for various A.Ys from 2015- 16 to 2019-20 w.r.t that business. During course of search some six note books were found ... 153C. The AO has finalized assessment making addition towards unaccounted investment u/s 69. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the undisclosed income from money lending business has arisen from disclosed source of money lending business only. Ld. CIT(A) observed that Section 69 of the Act covers

Varadarajan Baskaran, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2085/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2084, 2085, 2086, 2087 & 2088/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Varadarajan Baskaran, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Prop:- Shrinidhi Gold Bullion, Income Tax, 1080, 1St Floor, Srp Complex, Central Circle-2, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore Coimbatore 641 026. [Pan: Afypb 6208A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:-

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 69

During the course of search operation, some incriminating documents which that showed that he was involved in unaccounted money lending business and assessee had undisclosed Income spread for various A.Ys from 2015- 16 to 2019-20 w.r.t that business. During course of search some six note books were found ... 153C. The AO has finalized assessment making addition towards unaccounted investment u/s 69. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the undisclosed income from money lending business has arisen from disclosed source of money lending business only. Ld. CIT(A) observed that Section 69 of the Act covers

Varadarajan Baskaran, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2084/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2084, 2085, 2086, 2087 & 2088/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Varadarajan Baskaran, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Prop:- Shrinidhi Gold Bullion, Income Tax, 1080, 1St Floor, Srp Complex, Central Circle-2, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore Coimbatore 641 026. [Pan: Afypb 6208A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:-

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 69

During the course of search operation, some incriminating documents which that showed that he was involved in unaccounted money lending business and assessee had undisclosed Income spread for various A.Ys from 2015- 16 to 2019-20 w.r.t that business. During course of search some six note books were found ... 153C. The AO has finalized assessment making addition towards unaccounted investment u/s 69. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the undisclosed income from money lending business has arisen from disclosed source of money lending business only. Ld. CIT(A) observed that Section 69 of the Act covers

Sh. Surendra Kumar Patni, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Surendra Kumar Patni, C/O. M/S. Kalani & Co., 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 015. Pan No.: Adupp9249 D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 005. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.C. Parwal, Ca, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2024 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Jaipur Dated 25.06.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69B

levying tax as per section 115BBE of the Act.  [2024] 161 taxmann.com 44 (Madhya Pradesh) [19-03-2024] Where undisclosed income surrendered during search and seizure proceedings is derived from regular business activities, it is liable to be taxed at normal rate instead of tax rate stipulated under section 115BBE ... rectify their statutory computation of total income. Nowhere in the scheme it is ever anticipated or desired to change the head of income. Rather, undisclosed income if any discovered during the survey proceedings, there is a compulsion to treat the same as income under the head business and profession

Vinod Kumar Bajaj, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-32, New Delhi

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

ITA 2189/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanvinod Kumar Bajaj, Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, Shivaji Enclave Road, Central Circle 32, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110027. (Pan : Aadcr0962Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Amit Garg, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 Date Of Order : 20.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 15.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Rejecting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Under Section 153Ar.W.S 143(3) Is Illegal & Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Having Valid Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 69A

search action was accounted cash and hence the addition made in the hands of the assessee by alleging the same to be his undisclosed income is liable to be deleted. Explanation with respect to cash of Rs. 49,00,000/- (Rs. 41,00,000 + Rs. 8,00,000/-) found

H. Tamboli and Sons, Satara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

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

ITA 543/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.543/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 H. Tamboli & Sons, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Satara. H. No.37, Rajaspura Peth, Satara- 415001. Pan : Aadfh3058A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.46,50,000 U/S 69A Unexplained Income By Disregarding The Submission Of The Appellant That Entire Cash Is Accounted In The Books Of Account Maintained By The Appellant, As Turnover & Forming Part Of The Cash Balance Before Demonetization Date

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 143(2)Section 69A

Assessing Officer. Being unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.46,50,000/- as undisclosed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act and determined the total taxable income at Rs.50,90,760/- as against the income returned