← 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

Giridhar Jadhao, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 90/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.90/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Giridhar Jadhao Vs Dy. Cit F-60, Shri Ram Vatika Circle 2(1), Raipur (C.G.) Near Ram Mandir, Teacher Colony, Kota Raipur-492 001 Pan No. :Acjpj 7367A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22 /08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 24.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Which Emerged Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Vide Order U/S 144 Of The It Act Dated 28.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.21,41,188/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment U/S 69B Of The Act On Account Of Transaction In The Securities, On Reference Under Cib Transaction Under The Code 502 Of National & Multi Commodity Exchange Contract Of Rs.10 Lacs Or More Without Considering Our Submissions. 2. The Impugned Addition Made By The Ld. Ao Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Should Have Been Quashed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69B

sale, on which only profit loss is to be considered. 4. No case that the loss was paid by assessee out of any undisclosed income source. No case made out that assessee made any investment with broker which was not out of accounted income. 5. Even if transactions not disclosed ... evident from the Bank Statement of the assessee, we can satisfactorily agreed to the contention of the assessee that nothing can be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69B of the Act. In background of such facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the addition

M/S Kvr Infra, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30 (2), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 323/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2011-12) M/S Kvr Infra G-2, Room No.4, Shri Rani Sati Nagar Chsl, S.V. Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064. Pan: Aakfk3458Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-30 (2), Mumbai. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None (Written Submission Dt. 19.07.2023) "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.12.2022, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In Appeal Is Against Addition Of Rs. 50,24,875/- Made Under Section 69B Of The Income Tax Act, 1963 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: None (written submission dt. 19.07.2023)For Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69B

Nangalia Impex [54 taxmann.com 225 (Guj.)] to contend that the AO could not show that assessee had made purchases out of undisclosed income, hence, addition under section 69B of the Act is unjustified. The assessee further placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Patel Proteins ... stock shown in books of account, the Hon’ble Court held, that the statement furnished to banking authorities could not be treated as undisclosed income. 4 आअसं. 323/मुं/2023(िन.व. 2011-12) ITA Nos. 323/M/2023 (AY 2011-12) 9. We find that similar view has been taken

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 180/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 179/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 175/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 174/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 173/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 172/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained ... argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is invalid. 15. We have heard both the sides, perused the written submissions of the assessee