“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

The ACIT Central-1, Bhopal vs. Smt Meenakshi Saraiya, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO are dismissed

ITA 231/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)- Smt. Meenakshi Saraiya Bhopal E-13/111, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Anrps3407K Revenue By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Assessee By Shri Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)

amount to be received by these persons including the assessee as per the terms of the MOU is liable to be assessed as undisclosed income for A.Y.2018-19. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the MOU is completely silent about the land purchased

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Satish, Noida

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1646/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)

Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,34,374/- made by the AO treating 2 8.5% of sundry creditors as undisclosed income of the assessee despite the fact that the assessee failed to furnish the confirmation of creditors, their ITR and corresponding bills/vouchers to prove ... against deletion of addition of Rs. 1,41,34,374/- made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) by treating 8.5% of sundry creditors as undisclosed income. 3. Facts, in brief, are that in this case the assessee had filed his return of income on 27.10.2017 declaring taxable income

Manish Kumar, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 611/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, C.A and Mr. Shrey Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

deposits in bank account of Rs. 84,000/- and credit entries made from undisclosed sources of Rs.13,68,343/-are treated as unaccounted and undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income ... deposits in bank account of Rs. 84,0001- and credit entries made from undisclosed sources of Rs.13,68,343/- are treated as unaccounted and undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Viskahapatnam vs. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Company Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

arise at the time of hearing. 5. The Ld.DR argued that the assessee is unable to properly explain the discrepancies and voluntarily offered the undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.19 crores for the A.Y. 2010-11 to 2017-18. The Ld.DR through written submissions, reiterated that based

Rajendra Prasad Gathala, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 270/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT

Section 69A

SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD GATHALA VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 1 ,87,500/- on account of undisclosed income from relinquishment of right in property and treated as the income of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 1 ,87,500/ made to the income

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

inquiry. 7. Double Taxation is Unconstitutional therefore Illegal: The Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and facts in making addition on account of Undisclosed Income u/s 68 of the act, of Rs. 40,02,000/- alleging that Cash sales is unexplained amount, though it is very much included(Rs.36 ... that such income was already disclosed in the hands of the working partner and as such same income cannot be brought to tax as undisclosed income of the firm. 8.1 By perusal of the assessment order the ld.AO proceed only on assumption, presumption, suspicion guess work and invoked the provision

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Doshi, Mumbai

ITA 4459/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Income Tax Officer Doshi, Ward 19(2)(2) 63/A, 1St Khumbharwada Lane, Room No.503, Bhandari Street, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Near Goel Deval, Lalgaug, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abqpd5578B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income up to the date of payment. Clause Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Doshi; A.Y. 09-10 (2) did not prescribe the time limit within which the assessee should

Nec Pharmaceutical, Solan vs. ITO, Ward, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 33/CHANDI/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 80I

profit of the appellant at 12% net profit rate and rest of the profit amounting to Rs.12,53,765/- may be treated as undisclosed income of the appellant. This issue has been discussed by the AO in Para 4 of the assessment order. The anomalies

ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad vs. Venkata Praneeth Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 339/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 279/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Praneeth Vs. Acit Developers (P) Ltd, Central Circle 3(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccv4975A (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 339/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Vs. Venkata Praneeth Central Circle 3(3) Developers (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccv4975A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

deleted the addition of Rs.14,86,86,559/- despite the fact that the assessee during the search proceedings had agreed the said amount as undisclosed income in the statement dated 23.11.2019. It was submitted that the reliance of the learned CIT (A) on the affidavit filed before the Investigation Wing ... Developers P Ltd 14. The Assessing Officer in para 6.10 has summarized the reasons for making the addition of Rs.14,86,86,559/- towards undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. The basis reason is the answer of the M.D given response to Question No.2 which read as under

Venkata Praneeth Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan vs. Rashesh Shirishkumar Bhuta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

ITA 4370/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Court does not apply to the facts of the case as it was a case of penalty levied under Section 158 BFA (2) on undisclosed income determined on the basis of estimation on the application of gross credits to consider as turnover. She submitted that in this case, the facts ... immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income up to the date of payment. Clause (2) did not prescribe the time limit within which the assessee should pay tax on income disclosed

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan vs. Rashesh Shirishkumar Bhuta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

ITA 4368/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Aashiyana Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshaashiyana Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-20, 21-22, G. B. Nagar, Central Circle, Sector-16, Noida Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagca1134L Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

facts in confirming addition on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- despite the fact that no incriminating material or no undisclosed income or any evidence has been found during the search at the premises of the Appellant and therefore the addition under Section 153A is not sustainable

Suraj Popatrao Wagh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4157/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Naina Chaurasia, CAFor Respondent: 23.04.2024

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69Section 69A

credits amounting to Rs.1,59,15,174/- as appearing in the bank accounts other than credits made during the demonetisation period as undisclosed income as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Fatehabad vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

been recorded in the books of accounts of the Assessee. Therefore, the excess stock, per se, has to be naturally brought to tax as 'undisclosed income' by itself and there is no question of any corresponding deduction from that in such cases." Similarly, in the case of Kim Pharma ... Stocks, etc., or unexplained Assets, Money, Bullion, Jewelry etc. and therefore, such unexplained investments and expenses intended to be brought to tax as Undisclosed Income. When the excess stocks were found during the Survey, there is no question of allowing the Assessee to record any additional purchases because such purchases

Rajiv Kumar Goyal, Dhuri vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

Stocks, etc., or unexplained Assets, Money, Bullion, Jewelry etc. and therefore, such unexplained investments and expenses intended to be brought to tax as Undisclosed Income. When the excess stocks were found during the Survey, there is no question of allowing the Assessee to record any additional purchases because such purchases ... already been recorded in the books of accounts of the Assessee. Therefore, the excess stock, per se, has to be naturally brought to tax 'undisclosed income' by itself and there is no question of any corresponding deduction from that in such cases. vi) The judgment

Parulben Vijaykumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

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. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent

Amarpadma Credits Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Baid, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

account of recovery of cash advances of ₹61,79,997/– during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, the amount of ₹ 50,19,120/– was added as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed

Ankush Holdings Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1133/AHD/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2006-07 Ankush Holdings Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, Vs B/12, Sulabh Flats, Ward-1(1)1), Opp. Mirambica School Road, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aadca 7765 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Harishi Kesh Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per T.R. Senthil Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Harishi Kesh Patki, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

Commission in the case of Pradip Enterprises Ltd. and Pradip Overseas Ltd., wherein the respective companies have offered the share application money as their undisclosed income before the Settlement Commission, and also drawn our attention to page No.222 of the paper-book relating to the details of share capital money

Kuna Impex Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1053/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

assessee company and it is seen that in the garb of high share premium the assessee company has introduced it’s own undisclosed income. Accordingly, the A.O. issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and initiated re-assessment proceedings. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished