← 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

Sri Gouri Jarathi, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Warangal

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

ITA 473/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.473/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Gouri Jarathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward 3 Pan:Bcypj5294C Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Sole Ground Raised By The Assessee Is On The Appellate Order Passed By The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.38,00,500/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Without Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

assessee filed form No.26AS without giving any further details regarding the source of the money deposited. Since the cash deposited in bank accounts are undisclosed income on which no explanation was furnished, the Assessing Officer treated the deposits of Rs.38,00,500/- as income assessed

Jageet Singh, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), New Delhi

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

ITA 1330/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uslate Shri Jageet Singh, Vs. Cit (Appeals), Represented By Legal Heir, New Delhi. Mrs. Paramjeet Mand, B-2B, 280, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan : Alnps6343N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vatsal Sharma, Ar Shri Aditya Sharma, Ca Shri Suvir Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Order : 30.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 25.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Without Prejudice The Ld. Ao Has Wrongly Conducted The Scrutiny Proceedings In The Name Of The Deceased Assessee Without Bringing On Record All Of His Legal Heirs As Per The Requirement Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri Vatsal Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 1lSection 68Section 69A

without appreciating that the Appellant has been regularly making cash deposits in the bank account and deposits under reference cannot be alleged to be undisclosed income only for the reason that during the particular period amounts deposited were excessive as compared to amounts deposited in other periods without correctly examining ... been included in the Return of Income without appreciating 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 1l5BBE is not applicable in this case. 9. The CIT(A) ignored the fact