← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Kathiresan, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153C

other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence ... assessment under Section 153 A 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Comet Enterprise, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5090/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Respondent: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (Virtually appear)
Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

funds amounting to Rs.12,35,00,000/- remained shrouded in remained shrouded in mystery. This creates a mystery. This creates a strong presumption of undisclosed income, strong presumption of undisclosed income, making the addition justified, making the addition justified, 6.6 In the case of Navodaya Castles

Sh. Dhan Singh Meena, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Srishti Associates, Kota

13. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, present appeal filed by the department deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1189/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 250

Total demand raised after charging tax as per Rs. 3,70,55,474/- provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act on the undisclosed income of Rs. 3,96,05,000/- Assessee challenges the Rectification Order 6. The assessee-respondent herein felt aggrieved by the rectification order and challenged ... order dated 27.12.2019 i.e. the above said income of Rs. 3,96,05,000/-, on account of “unaccounted on-money” having been treated as undisclosed income as per provisions of section 69A of the Act, which was actually required to be taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE

Ashokbhai Anbabhai Kachadiya, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1373/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

years from the end of relevant assessment year. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer finalized assessment order by estimating income at 8% of undisclosed income of Rs.1,74,81,925/-, which is clearly below the specified limit of 50 lakhs with respect to re-assessments initiated beyond a period ... Rs.1,74,81,925/- in his bank account. We note that in the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has estimated the assessee's undisclosed income at Rs.1,74,81,925/- and thereafter applied the rate of 8% u/s.44AD of the Act on such undisclosed commission income and thereafter assessed

Vikrant, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5129/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 184Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)

PANs was given and hence proceeded to complete the assessment u/s144 r.w.s 147 at an income of Rs. 26,14,870/- on account of undisclosed income arising out of these transactions. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred a appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As no effective response was made by the assessee

Vikrant, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shmali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5128/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 184Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)

PANs was given and hence proceeded to complete the assessment u/s144 r.w.s 147 at an income of Rs. 26,14,870/- on account of undisclosed income arising out of these transactions. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred a appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As no effective response was made by the assessee

Vikrant, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5127/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 184Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)

PANs was given and hence proceeded to complete the assessment u/s144 r.w.s 147 at an income of Rs. 26,14,870/- on account of undisclosed income arising out of these transactions. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred a appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As no effective response was made by the assessee

Vikrant, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5126/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 184Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)

PANs was given and hence proceeded to complete the assessment u/s144 r.w.s 147 at an income of Rs. 26,14,870/- on account of undisclosed income arising out of these transactions. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred a appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As no effective response was made by the assessee

Vikrant, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5125/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 184Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)

PANs was given and hence proceeded to complete the assessment u/s144 r.w.s 147 at an income of Rs. 26,14,870/- on account of undisclosed income arising out of these transactions. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred a appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As no effective response was made by the assessee

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3515/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

because of its contravention to the provisions under section 65B of the India Evidence Act. 6.1 The appellant contended that the alleged addition of undisclosed income is not based on any incriminating document found during the course of search action. Further, the appellant stated that the assessment u/s 153A ... specialized proceeding for the purpose of assessing the normal income of the assessee along with any undisclosed income pursuant to the search action. The normal income already assessed cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. In the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla

Purushuttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 3514/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

because of its contravention to the provisions under section 65B of the India Evidence Act. 6.1 The appellant contended that the alleged addition of undisclosed income is not based on any incriminating document found during the course of search action. Further, the appellant stated that the assessment u/s 153A ... specialized proceeding for the purpose of assessing the normal income of the assessee along with any undisclosed income pursuant to the search action. The normal income already assessed cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. In the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3513/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

because of its contravention to the provisions under section 65B of the India Evidence Act. 6.1 The appellant contended that the alleged addition of undisclosed income is not based on any incriminating document found during the course of search action. Further, the appellant stated that the assessment u/s 153A ... specialized proceeding for the purpose of assessing the normal income of the assessee along with any undisclosed income pursuant to the search action. The normal income already assessed cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. In the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3512/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

because of its contravention to the provisions under section 65B of the India Evidence Act. 6.1 The appellant contended that the alleged addition of undisclosed income is not based on any incriminating document found during the course of search action. Further, the appellant stated that the assessment u/s 153A ... specialized proceeding for the purpose of assessing the normal income of the assessee along with any undisclosed income pursuant to the search action. The normal income already assessed cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. In the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3511/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

because of its contravention to the provisions under section 65B of the India Evidence Act. 6.1 The appellant contended that the alleged addition of undisclosed income is not based on any incriminating document found during the course of search action. Further, the appellant stated that the assessment u/s 153A ... specialized proceeding for the purpose of assessing the normal income of the assessee along with any undisclosed income pursuant to the search action. The normal income already assessed cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. In the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3510/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

because of its contravention to the provisions under section 65B of the India Evidence Act. 6.1 The appellant contended that the alleged addition of undisclosed income is not based on any incriminating document found during the course of search action. Further, the appellant stated that the assessment u/s 153A ... specialized proceeding for the purpose of assessing the normal income of the assessee along with any undisclosed income pursuant to the search action. The normal income already assessed cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. In the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3509/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

because of its contravention to the provisions under section 65B of the India Evidence Act. 6.1 The appellant contended that the alleged addition of undisclosed income is not based on any incriminating document found during the course of search action. Further, the appellant stated that the assessment u/s 153A ... specialized proceeding for the purpose of assessing the normal income of the assessee along with any undisclosed income pursuant to the search action. The normal income already assessed cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. In the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla

Shailesh Kumar, Meerut vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut

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

ITA 2108/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalshailesh Kumar, Asst. Cit (Central) C/O Malik & Co. Meerut. (Advisors & Advocate- Vs. Since 1927), 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Argpk0548N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv., Shri Sanjay Malik, Adv.,Shri Murtaza Shuberi, Adv. & Shri Praveen Bansal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S., Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Shailesh Kumar Vs. Acit 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out On 24.05.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & It Was Covered In The Search In The Case Of H.S. Tewari Group Of Cases. An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 142(3)/153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Making Addition Of Rs.12,01,153/- As The Assessee Failed To Prove The Source Of The Investment In Construction.

Section 132Section 142(3)Section 153Section 153A

during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income. However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would

Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1724/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering Rs. 12,22,36,163/- as business income as against undisclosed income under Section 69A and 69B of the Act without appreciating the specific finding of the assessment order ignoring that this amount represented seizure of cash amounting

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1713/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering Rs. 12,22,36,163/- as business income as against undisclosed income under Section 69A and 69B of the Act without appreciating the specific finding of the assessment order ignoring that this amount represented seizure of cash amounting