← 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

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Kota

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

ITA 433/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra Addl. CITa
Section 143(3)Section 234B

says that the cash deposit during demonetization period cannot be from the explained disclosed sources and required to be treated as deposited out of undisclosed income. Once the Assessee has explained and fully established the source of the deposit, there is no law that any cash deposited during demonetization period ... must be considered as undisclosed income only. More so, when the AO did not whisper the possibility of any other source generating the income. 4.3 The ld. CIT(A) says that the cash of Rs. 29,69,025.47 remained for a month only after the start of demonetization. However, during

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 112/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.112/Srt/2021 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, 9Th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 Pan No. Aadcd 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

respect of buyers. 25. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Standard Tea Processing Company Limited (supra) held that the addition of undisclosed income on account of inflated purchases price can be made only for the period to which documents found during the search is related ... entire period. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs B Nagendra Baliga (supra) held that the assessing officer is not entitled to extrapolate undisclosed income detected in the course of search for a particular period to entire block period on estimate basis. Further, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

Sibasankar Sahu, - Deogarh vs. PCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.217/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sibasankar Sahu, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Arnapurna Store, At: Bania Sahi, Po/Ps: Deogarh Dist-Deogarh-768108 Pan No. :Apeps 1706 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 18.03.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041011837(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 199 Days. It Was The Submission That The Delay Was On Account Of Medical Treatment Of The Assessee’S Father & Assessee’S Wife. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Trading Of Potatoes, Onion & Garlic In The Remote Area Of The District Of Deogarh, Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Not Well- Versed In Taxation Issues & On Account Of The Medical Treatment Of The 2 Assessee’S Father As Also The Assessee’S Wife, The Assessee Could Not File

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 144ASection 263Section 44A

crept in for consideration. Having heard the case and the following issues are considered and decided under separate heads: 6. Addition on account of undisclosed income from business or profession. (i) The receipts from business sales are first deposited in the bank account and then remitted to the supplier ... liable to be added to the income of the assessee for the A.Y 2017-18. Add:Rs.14,33,943/- 7. Addition on account of undisclosed income from hiring of vehicle u/s 44AE The assessee has also owned two goods carriage vehicles which were plyed on hiring business. Moreover

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings, he cannot obdurately adhere to his suspicions and treat the subscribed capital as the undisclosed income of the Company. 23………..In this connection, it may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corpn

Omshanti Universal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Mumbai

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

ITA 2336/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleomshanti Universal Private Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 8(4) 302, Raheja Xion Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Dr. B.A. Road, Byculla (E) Mumbai – 400027 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaco9434H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Mr. H.M. Bhatt

Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹.16,00,00,0000/- to the total income of the Appellant, being undisclosed income admitted by Mr. Paras Porwal at the time of survey for the year under consideration. The Appellant prays that the addition

M/S Shankar Rice & General Mills, Moga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

cash in hand) as additional income for the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y.2017-18. Therefore, as per AO, the assessee had categorically admitted the undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 39,99,973/- for the A.Y.2017-18 during the course of survey conducted on 21.09.2016. The statement recorded of Sh. Parveen Kumar ... unable to explain the source of the aforesaid unaccounted income detected for the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y.2017- 18. As such, the aforesaid undisclosed income of the assessee was taxed as per provisions of section 69 & 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since

Shri Shadi Lal Jain, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward II (2), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed in the

ITA 59/ASR/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) on account of sale of jewellery to M/s Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. as undisclosed income of assessees are liable to be deleted, as the case of sale of jewellery to M/s Bishan Dass Mukesh Kumar is identical to that

Clavecon India P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1908/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

they failed to take into account the fact that it being the firs- of business, no addition could have been made to the undisclosed income of the assessee, that partnership firm. 23. Similarly, in the case of India Rice Mills (supra) also, this Court has held that the Tribunal ... time of starting of the business, as income of the assessee Firm. The Tribunal erroneously came to the conclusion that the deposits represented undisclosed income of the assessee firm. All the three authorities below committed the same mistake and in this regard their orders cannot be allowed to stand

Clavecon India P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1907/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

they failed to take into account the fact that it being the firs- of business, no addition could have been made to the undisclosed income of the assessee, that partnership firm. 23. Similarly, in the case of India Rice Mills (supra) also, this Court has held that the Tribunal ... time of starting of the business, as income of the assessee Firm. The Tribunal erroneously came to the conclusion that the deposits represented undisclosed income of the assessee firm. All the three authorities below committed the same mistake and in this regard their orders cannot be allowed to stand

Shashi Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1841/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1841/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Shashi Sharma, Vs Dcit, Ka-5, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ageps6394R

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessment under section 153A 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 assessment

Bhushan Kumar Gupta, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbhushan Kumar Gupta Vs. Pr. Cit House No.130, Sector-11, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana -132 103 Pan No. Aatpg 2846 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2023

Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69

There is, therefore nothing stated in the pre-amended or post amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act that where the assessee surrenders undisclosed income during search action for the relevant year, the tax rate has to be charged as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore ... been stated either in the pre-amended or in the post-amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act that where the assessee surrendered undisclosed income during search action for Bhushan Kumar Gupta vs. PCIT 11 the relevant year, the tax rate has to be charged as per provisions

Anoop Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, New Delhi

ITA 454/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee wherein it is challenged by the assessee that assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act is time barred in terms of section 153B of the Act and ought to have held to be annulled.

Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

included. 8. In the course of search in the premises of the assessee on 30.3.2016, no incriminating documents were found representing any undisclosed income of the assessee either in the form of money, bullion, jewellery, investment in other movable and immovable assets, notings in loose sheet, trail of any transactions

Kanta Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 134ASection 14ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

failing which it was proposed that the whole would be treated as an ITA Nos. 77 & 64/JP/2023 Smt. Kanta Agarwal, Jaipur. attempt to introduce undisclosed income and LTCG amounting to Rs. 21,39,336/- was proposed to be added on account of undisclosed income. The assessee vide reply dated ... which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment. The undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of evidence and material found during search. The statement recorded under Section

Kanta Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 134ASection 14ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

failing which it was proposed that the whole would be treated as an ITA Nos. 77 & 64/JP/2023 Smt. Kanta Agarwal, Jaipur. attempt to introduce undisclosed income and LTCG amounting to Rs. 21,39,336/- was proposed to be added on account of undisclosed income. The assessee vide reply dated ... which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment. The undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of evidence and material found during search. The statement recorded under Section

Manohar Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur

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

ITA 159/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

because the respondent could not produce the parties, it did not follow automatically that an adverse inference should be drawn that the amount represented undisclosed income of the respondent and that the Revenue was not justified in drawing the adverse inference and adding the amounts of the cash credits ... remand proceeding the ld. AO based on the details so submitted failed to prove that the amount received by the cheque is the undisclosed income of the assessee. Even though the details available on record the ld. AO did not deemed it fit to verify the veracity of the submission

Murlidhar Kriplani, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 54F

Section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary to check the return, so that where block return conforms to the undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no reason, why the Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani vs. ITO authorities should issue notice under Section 143(2). However

Manoj Kumar, Pali vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 104/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 131Section 132ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, assessed the total income of Rs. 5,17,430/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of commission without considering return filed u/s 139 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee ... order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, assessed the total income of Rs. 5,17,430/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of commission without considering return filed u/s 139 of the Act. Having discussed the facts of the case, I would like

Manoj Kumar, Pali vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 132ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, assessed the total income of Rs. 5,17,430/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of commission without considering return filed u/s 139 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee ... order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, assessed the total income of Rs. 5,17,430/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of commission without considering return filed u/s 139 of the Act. Having discussed the facts of the case, I would like

Manoj Kumar, Pali vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 102/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 132ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, assessed the total income of Rs. 5,17,430/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of commission without considering return filed u/s 139 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee ... order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, assessed the total income of Rs. 5,17,430/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of commission without considering return filed u/s 139 of the Act. Having discussed the facts of the case, I would like

Manoj Kumar, Pali vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 101/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
Section 131Section 132ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, assessed the total income of Rs. 5,17,430/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of commission without considering return filed u/s 139 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee ... order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144, assessed the total income of Rs. 5,17,430/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of commission without considering return filed u/s 139 of the Act. Having discussed the facts of the case, I would like