← 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. CIT Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Zain Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 237/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

been no independent finding of the ld. AO in the penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233 ... No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 8 of 13 132(4) of the Act or in the affidavit which could said to be undisclosed income u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty levied by the ld. AO u/s 271AAB

Asstt.CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Zaina Fatima Ahmad, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 236/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

been no independent finding of the ld. AO in the penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233 ... No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 8 of 13 132(4) of the Act or in the affidavit which could said to be undisclosed income u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty levied by the ld. AO u/s 271AAB

Asstt.CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shaheen Rabia, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 235/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

been no independent finding of the ld. AO in the penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233 ... No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 8 of 13 132(4) of the Act or in the affidavit which could said to be undisclosed income u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty levied by the ld. AO u/s 271AAB

Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Mehtab Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 234/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

been no independent finding of the ld. AO in the penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233 ... No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 8 of 13 132(4) of the Act or in the affidavit which could said to be undisclosed income u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty levied by the ld. AO u/s 271AAB

Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Tabrez Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 233/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

been no independent finding of the ld. AO in the penalty order as to how the alleged income would come within the definition of undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Whereas the assessee has neither surrendered any income in the statement recorded u/s ITA No.233 ... No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 8 of 13 132(4) of the Act or in the affidavit which could said to be undisclosed income u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty levied by the ld. AO u/s 271AAB

Subhash Kumar Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 707/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamshi Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

erred in holding that it is clearly proved that the assessee has indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gains. (h) The Ld. AO ought to have accepted the admission of long term capital gains ... position to justify the price rise. It is clearly proved that the assessee had involved in a dubious sale transaction to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long-Term Capital Gain. Therefore, following certain judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Bikash Kumar Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 405/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamshi Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

erred in holding that it is clearly proved that the assessee has indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long Term Capital Gains. (h) The Ld. AO ought to have accepted the admission of long term capital gains ... position to justify the price rise. It is clearly proved that the assessee had involved in a dubious sale transaction to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Long-Term Capital Gain. Therefore, following certain judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court