← 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

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 375/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

even from the statement, no conclusion can be drawn that the entries made on the relevant page belongs to the assessed and represents his undisclosed income. It is also an admitted fact that the statement of the assessed was not recorded at any stage during the assessment proceedings. The only ... document and on the basis of the entry of nothings or figure etc. in this document, it cannot be concluded that this represents the undisclosed income of the assessee.” 65. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 374/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

even from the statement, no conclusion can be drawn that the entries made on the relevant page belongs to the assessed and represents his undisclosed income. It is also an admitted fact that the statement of the assessed was not recorded at any stage during the assessment proceedings. The only ... document and on the basis of the entry of nothings or figure etc. in this document, it cannot be concluded that this represents the undisclosed income of the assessee.” 65. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 641/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

even from the statement, no conclusion can be drawn that the entries made on the relevant page belongs to the assessed and represents his undisclosed income. It is also an admitted fact that the statement of the assessed was not recorded at any stage during the assessment proceedings. The only ... document and on the basis of the entry of nothings or figure etc. in this document, it cannot be concluded that this represents the undisclosed income of the assessee.” 65. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal

Manoranjan Lenka, Balanga vs. PCIT-1, Bhubanewsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.34/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Manoranjan Lenka, Vs Pr.Cit-1, Bhubaneswar At/Po: Balanga, Dist : Puri, Odisha-752105 Pan No. :Addpl 7206 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr.Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 31.12.2021, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/ 2021-22/1038323205(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 27 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay Therein. Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. In View Of The Above & Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 13.08.2019 & It Was A Case Of Limited Scrutiny In Respect Of Large Cash Deposits In The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

bank account compared to the gross sales was in excess of Rs.32,10,196/-, he ought to have added the entire amount as undisclosed income of the assessee, against which the AO has only adopted 8% by holding the said excess as undisclosed turnover of the assessee

Ankush Ramrao Shinde, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the same terms

ITA 1054/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1053/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1054/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ankush Ramrao Shinde Income Tax Officer 19A, Cosmos Horizon Skyline - 20(1)(1), Mumbai Chs, Pokharan Road 2, Room No. 124, 1St Floor, Versus Thane- 400601 Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aetps2857J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per N K Choudhry: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Even Dated 31St March, 2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi, {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’ U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ays 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 69

case of Cosmos Group. The statement recorded on oath of Shri. Manish Mehta, Director of said concern, wherein he has admitted his undisclosed income relating to the ‘on money’ paid by the Assessee, which was unearthed during the search action. Accordingly, after recording the reasons and issuing the statutory notice ... money’ paid to Cosmos Group for booking of flat should not be added to the total income of the Assessee as undisclosed income. 4.4 In response to show cause the Assessee by filing letters dated 23rd & 26 Dec, 2016 claimed that the Assessee had not paid any cash

Ankush Ramrao Shinde, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the same terms

ITA 1053/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1053/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1054/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ankush Ramrao Shinde Income Tax Officer 19A, Cosmos Horizon Skyline - 20(1)(1), Mumbai Chs, Pokharan Road 2, Room No. 124, 1St Floor, Versus Thane- 400601 Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aetps2857J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per N K Choudhry: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Even Dated 31St March, 2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi, {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’ U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ays 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 69

case of Cosmos Group. The statement recorded on oath of Shri. Manish Mehta, Director of said concern, wherein he has admitted his undisclosed income relating to the ‘on money’ paid by the Assessee, which was unearthed during the search action. Accordingly, after recording the reasons and issuing the statutory notice ... money’ paid to Cosmos Group for booking of flat should not be added to the total income of the Assessee as undisclosed income. 4.4 In response to show cause the Assessee by filing letters dated 23rd & 26 Dec, 2016 claimed that the Assessee had not paid any cash