“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

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. M/S Garden Enterprise, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 123/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

nutshell, the details of addition made and addition confirmed is as under:- 6.9 Considering above facts, the AO is directed to tax undisclosed income as per tabular chart herein above on year-to-year basis and also relief would be provided accordingly. 6.10 In view of the above discussion ... nutshell, the details of addition made and addition confirmed is as under:- 6.9 Considering above facts, the AO is directed to tax undisclosed income as per tabular chart herein above on year-to-year basis and also relief would be provided accordingly. 6.10 In view of the above discussion

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. M/S Garden Enterprise, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 122/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 250

DCIT, Rajkot vs. M/S Garden Enterprise, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 121/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 250

Star Delta Transformers Ltd, Govindpura Bhopal vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 124/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) A search u/s 132 was conducted upon assessee-company wherein the assessee admitted certain undisclosed income. Post-search, the assessee filed return of income of AY 2011-12 declaring a total income ... return so filed, the assessee included undisclosed income of Rs. 17,50,000/- admitted during search but, however, the assessee did not offer full amount of undisclosed income admitted during search. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide assessment-order

Gunmala Jain, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-2(2), Ajmer

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1262/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1262/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears :2019-20 Gunmala Jain, बनाम 28 Abhi Lash Nikunj, Kalyan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) Colony, Ajmer Road Kekri, Ajmer स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.: ABRPJ 4764E Ajmer अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assesseeby :Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (Addl. CIT) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/1

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 80G

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. ……………………………………………. Sub-Section (7) prescribes levy of penalty at the rate of 50% of the amount of tax payable

Guthu Rithesh Rai, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above direction

ITA 790/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vinaya Simha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 131Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

concerns of Atria Brindavan power private limited. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents bearing determination of the total undisclosed income was found. Consequent to the search, the case of the assessee was centralised. Subsequently, the reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings were recorded for the impugned assessment year

Vikunj Real Estate Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3179/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 41(1)

PCIT has highlighted the exact same issue that the AO should have brought to tax the undisclosed commission income instead of restricting the undisclosed income to the extent of TDS benefit. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we are of the considered view that the AO has made

DCIT, Delhi vs. Sushil Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3490/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3014/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2020-21)

Section 1Section 115BSection 153Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,57,71,872/-on account of commission received from alleged telegraphic transfer business as undisclosed income. 5. That without prejudice to the above ground of appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case and provision

DCIT, Delhi vs. Sushil Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3488/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3014/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2020-21)

Section 1Section 115BSection 153Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Sushil Goel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3014/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3014/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2020-21)

Section 1Section 115BSection 153Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Sushil Goel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3013/DEL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3014/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2020-21)

Section 1Section 115BSection 153Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Satyaprakash, Agra vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 334/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Accordingly, he treated the return of income as invalid and the income disclosed by the assessee as undisclosed income to the extent of Rs.1,97,990/-. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC and filed a detailed submission. After

Vulli Radhakrishna, Tuni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tuni

ITA 359/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69A

received from Axis Securities Ltd: Rs. 1,97,195/- had, most arbitrarily held the same as having been sourced out of the assessee’s undisclosed income for the subject year. 10. Per contra, Dr. Aparna Villuri, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr. DR”), relied upon the orders

Tahoora Proteins, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-2 Now Ward-1, Godhra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 14Section 143(3)Section 69

facts of the appellant's case in confirming addition of 1,25,00,000/-U/s 69 of the Act as undisclosed income. 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the appellant's case in confirming disallowance of set-off of current year ... follows: “Section 71, of read with sections 69 and 14, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Losses Intra head set off [Set off against undisclosed income] - Whether for Income declared in survey to be taxed, it has to fall under one of heads of income under section 14 and cannot

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Abhayraj Fattehraj Chordiya, C/O Laxmi Oil Mil

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R BhattFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

assessment in the name of the assessee based on assumptions and presumptions on incorrect facts. The note fails to indicate the quantum of undisclosed income for the relevant assessment year and instead generically covers multiple years in a consolidated manner. There is no clear identification of seized material corresponding ... were found from the premises of Mr. Rudolph Lima, Nashik, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have come to the conclusion that there is undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. 30. Referring to various decisions, he submitted that the loose sheets, diaries and entries in loose sheets

Srinivas Chowdary Vallabhaneni, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1461/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1461/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Reema Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 271Section 271ASection 274

Initiation of penalty, without any specific finding in the assessment order as to the discovery, as a result of search action, of any "undisclosed income" within the meaning of clause (c) of explanation to Section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law, (ii) initiation of penalty ... without any specific finding in the assessment order as to the discovery, as a result of search action, of any “undisclosed income” within the meaning of clause (c) of explanation to section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law, (iii) That initiation of penalty solely

Rajeswara Rao Anne, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CA

Section 11ISection 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

Initiation of penalty, without any speeific finding in the assessment order as to the discovery, as a result of search action, ofany "undisclosed income" within the meaning of clause (c) of explanation to Section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law. (iii) That initiation of penalty ... rate as per the provisions of section 11ISBBE is not justified especially when no other incriminating material was found, meaning that it is not undisclosed income. 7. The appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to amend OR raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground

Anne Manoj Chowdary, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Center Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1437/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Act presupposes that the income must fall within the definition of “undisclosed income” under clause (c) of the Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. Since no material, document or evidence was found during the search relating ... said sum, the amount cannot be treated as “undisclosed income,” and hence no penalty is leviable. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to delete the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the order of the lower authorities

M/S. Thirani Securities Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2001/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)Section 250

transactions purportedly made by the assessee were pre-arranged/accommodated and the receipts in terms of sale value of Rs.11,39,500/- was the undisclosed income channelized by the assessee into its books of accounts. In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration

Bishal Jain, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1323/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 69A

jurisdiction by making addition in respect of undisclosed sources of money u/s 69A Rs. 11,69,965/-, Rs. 6,26,929/- on account of undisclosed income in respect of excess profit u/s 69A of the Act and Rs. 43,632/- in respect of cash deposit. 5. In the appellate proceedings