← 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

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

bank account but then such an opinion proceeds on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constitute undisclosed income, and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. The amount deposited in the bank account may be out of sale proceeds ... bald assertion by the AO that the credits were a circular route adopted by the assessee to plough back its own undisclosed income into its accounts, can be of no avail—Revenue was required to prove this allegation—Revenue would be required to bridge the gap between the suspicions

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

bank account but then such an opinion proceeds on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constitute undisclosed income, and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. The amount deposited in the bank account may be out of sale proceeds ... bald assertion by the AO that the credits were a circular route adopted by the assessee to plough back its own undisclosed income into its accounts, can be of no avail—Revenue was required to prove this allegation—Revenue would be required to bridge the gap between the suspicions

DCIT Central Circle-07, Delhi vs. Anoop Soni, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 157/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 69

appellate order to allow benefit of peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee as the assessee ... peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding ITA Nos. 156 & 157/Del/2022 Anoop Kumar Soni back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi vs. Anoop Soni, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 156/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 69

appellate order to allow benefit of peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee as the assessee ... peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding ITA Nos. 156 & 157/Del/2022 Anoop Kumar Soni back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee

Anoop Kumar Soni, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1643/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 69

appellate order to allow benefit of peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee as the assessee ... peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding ITA Nos. 156 & 157/Del/2022 Anoop Kumar Soni back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee

Anoop Kumar Soni, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-7, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1642/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 69

appellate order to allow benefit of peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee as the assessee ... peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding ITA Nos. 156 & 157/Del/2022 Anoop Kumar Soni back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee

Anoop Kumar Soni, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-7, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1641/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 69

appellate order to allow benefit of peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee as the assessee ... peak credit. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2.19 himself held that AO was justified in adding ITA Nos. 156 & 157/Del/2022 Anoop Kumar Soni back undisclosed income arising from seized material in the hands of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in allowing peak credit to assessee

Pooja Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-56(4), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5154/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 131

assessee in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs CIT-1. Nagpur m ITA No. 18/2017 has expressed the view that the undisclosed income in the garb of LTCG has to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68 by holding as under:- " …. The authorities have recorded a dear finding ... fact that the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. While so observing , the authorities held that the assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in a unknown

Anil Manhare, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 152/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.152/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271D

/147 of the Act dated 08.12.2019 held the entire investment of Rs.3,32,100/- as having been sourced out of the assessee’s undisclosed income and assessed his income at Rs. 4,88,100/-. Also the A.O while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271D ... concluded that no part of investment in the properties was sourced out any cash loan, but in fact it was the latters undisclosed income that was so utilized for sourcing the same, then, it is beyond comprehension that after having 5 Anil ManhareVs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai rejected the aforesaid

Shree Murlidhar Jewellers, Jamnagar vs. The Pr.CIT-IV, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2016-17 Shree Murlidharjewellers Vs. The Pr.Cit-4 Chandi Bazar Jamnagar. Jamnagar 361 001. Pan : Aaifs 4781 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income-Tax)-4, Jamnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit)”] Dated 11.12.2019In Exercise Of His Revisionary Power Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Over The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Asst.Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: I) The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 4, Jamnagar Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, Particularly In The Light Of Reasons Stated By Him In The Show Cause Notice & In The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act & Hence The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law. 2 Ii) The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 4, Jamnagar Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Addition Of Rs. 70,89,098/- U/S 69 Of The Act By Failing To Appreciate That Provisions Of Section 69 Were Not Attracted In.”

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

that the stock surrendered relating to the business of the assessee and the partner of the firm admitting to the same being acquired from undisclosed income of the firm ,it had been rightly accepted as being in the nature of business income by the AO. The Ld.PCIT however ... that on being asked to explain regarding excess stock found during the course of survey, the partner had stated the same was out of undisclosed income for the assessee’s firm i.e. Shree Murlidhar Jewellers. 9. He also contended that the assessee had pointed out to the Ld.PCIT that identical

Ajay Bhargava HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A)For Respondent: Ms. MonishaChoudhary (Addl.CIT)

produce and filed details of sales is only a self serving documents and nothing else. It is established that to a large extent, the undisclosed income earned by assessee by way of sources which have not been disclosed by the assessee and the same has been declared in the garb ... income from other sources. Thus in view of the elaborate discussion made above, I hereby hold the amount of Rs.17,00,246/- as undisclosed income of the assessee as his income from other sources (taxable at the rate of 30% as provided u/s 115BBE.)’’ In first appeal

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 399/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

appeal: - “1. The Ld. AO has made addition and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part addition without discovering any undisclosed income or undisclosed assets during search. 2. The Ld. AO has erred and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on estimation basis in search ... ground as under: - “1. The Ld. AO has made addition and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part addition without discovering any undisclosed income or undisclosed assets during search. 10. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee preferred not to press this ground

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 398/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

appeal: - “1. The Ld. AO has made addition and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part addition without discovering any undisclosed income or undisclosed assets during search. 2. The Ld. AO has erred and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on estimation basis in search ... ground as under: - “1. The Ld. AO has made addition and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part addition without discovering any undisclosed income or undisclosed assets during search. 10. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee preferred not to press this ground

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 397/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

appeal: - “1. The Ld. AO has made addition and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part addition without discovering any undisclosed income or undisclosed assets during search. 2. The Ld. AO has erred and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on estimation basis in search ... ground as under: - “1. The Ld. AO has made addition and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part addition without discovering any undisclosed income or undisclosed assets during search. 10. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee preferred not to press this ground

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 396/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

appeal: - “1. The Ld. AO has made addition and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part addition without discovering any undisclosed income or undisclosed assets during search. 2. The Ld. AO has erred and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on estimation basis in search ... ground as under: - “1. The Ld. AO has made addition and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part addition without discovering any undisclosed income or undisclosed assets during search. 10. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee preferred not to press this ground

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2092/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

more than one property and therefore, in terms of Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3,91,467/- in all the assessment years. 9. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action ... papers was questioned or inquired by search authority, while recording her statement dt. 04.02.2016 and 06.06.2016. f) No questions were asked in relation to undisclosed income to lose papers during the course of her Statement dt. 04.02.2016 and 06.06.2016. g) Neither assessee had owned up the seized loose papers

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2091/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

more than one property and therefore, in terms of Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3,91,467/- in all the assessment years. 9. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action ... papers was questioned or inquired by search authority, while recording her statement dt. 04.02.2016 and 06.06.2016. f) No questions were asked in relation to undisclosed income to lose papers during the course of her Statement dt. 04.02.2016 and 06.06.2016. g) Neither assessee had owned up the seized loose papers

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2090/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

more than one property and therefore, in terms of Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3,91,467/- in all the assessment years. 9. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action ... papers was questioned or inquired by search authority, while recording her statement dt. 04.02.2016 and 06.06.2016. f) No questions were asked in relation to undisclosed income to lose papers during the course of her Statement dt. 04.02.2016 and 06.06.2016. g) Neither assessee had owned up the seized loose papers

Forever Flourishing Fin. & Inv. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6120/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Forever Flourishing Fin & Inv. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

ITA 6040/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA