undisclosed income — 9,092 case laws

Anakala Sunitha, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1504/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 69A

made without appreciating the flow of funds and that the assessee, being a Government teacher with no other undisclosed income, should be given an opportunity to present the case on merits. He therefore requested that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. 6 Anakala Sunitha

Krypton Distributors LLP (Earlier Known As Krypton Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1733/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Krypton Distributors Llp (Earlier Known As Krypton Ito, Ward 12(1), Distributors P. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Flat No.1A, 1, Abdul Rasul Chowringhee Square, Vs. Avenue, Kalighat, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700026, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck5298G Assessee By : Shri Manoj Katuruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Katuruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

where assessing officer solely based on statement of assessee’s director recorded during search operation treated share application money received by assessee company as undisclosed income and made additions u/s 68 of the Act, since said statement was retracted and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence ... during the course of search, made a categorical admission under section 132(4) that the cash amount seized belonged to him and it represented undisclosed income not recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee did not immediately retract from the above admission but only during the assessment proceedings

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Sobha Chand Bhansali, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1090/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

60/KOL/2025& ITA No. 1090/Kol/25 Sobha Chand Bhansali; AYs 2011-12 to 2017-18 (Investigation), Unit-1, Kolkata on account of undisclosed income from A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y.2017-18. The ld. AO extracted the details of disclosure made in various assessment years on page no.1 of the assessment order ... noted that the assessee did not include the said undisclosed income in the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee claimed before the ld. AO that he was not aware of any disclosure made of 20.00 crores before the ld. AO nor did have any documents/ signed documents

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1145/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T

Section 153ASection 69

assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee has failed to produce any other documentary evidence with respect to the taxability of undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.48,72,765/- relating to the sale of property at Nanmangalam. Finally, on perusal of the assessment order ... case of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd, it is found that the undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.48,72,765/- with respect to the sale of property at Nanmangalam has not been assessed in the hand of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd and accordingly not brought

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1144/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T

Section 153ASection 69

assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee has failed to produce any other documentary evidence with respect to the taxability of undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.48,72,765/- relating to the sale of property at Nanmangalam. Finally, on perusal of the assessment order ... case of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd, it is found that the undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.48,72,765/- with respect to the sale of property at Nanmangalam has not been assessed in the hand of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd and accordingly not brought

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T

Section 153ASection 69

assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee has failed to produce any other documentary evidence with respect to the taxability of undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.48,72,765/- relating to the sale of property at Nanmangalam. Finally, on perusal of the assessment order ... case of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd, it is found that the undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.48,72,765/- with respect to the sale of property at Nanmangalam has not been assessed in the hand of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd and accordingly not brought

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Construction, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4245/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Avinash Construction, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Abil House 2, Old Cgo Annexe Building, Vs. Ganesh Khind Road, M.K.Road, Range Hill Corner, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411007. Pan : Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69C

further noted that, the appellant also mentioned that the disallowances u/s 40A(3), 40(a)(ia) etc. are not attracted while computing the undisclosed income on the basis of unaccounted sales/ business receipts and unaccounted expenditure noted in seized/ impounded documents which are not recorded in the books of accounts ... applicable because this is not the case of the assessee or the Revenue that the computation of undisclosed income is on an exact basis as per the seized documents and the Books of Account. It was submitted that similar proposition has been laid down by the Co-ordinate Jaipur Bench

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1906/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

provisions, we find that for invoking explanation 5A, the assessee must be found to be a owner of tangible asset acquired out of the undisclosed income. In the instant case before us is also the issue in dispute is whether the assessee is found to be owner of the tangible ... assets and whether such tangible assets have been acquired by the assessee using the relevant undisclosed income before the date of the search. The assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1905/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

provisions, we find that for invoking explanation 5A, the assessee must be found to be a owner of tangible asset acquired out of the undisclosed income. In the instant case before us is also the issue in dispute is whether the assessee is found to be owner of the tangible ... assets and whether such tangible assets have been acquired by the assessee using the relevant undisclosed income before the date of the search. The assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1904/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

provisions, we find that for invoking explanation 5A, the assessee must be found to be a owner of tangible asset acquired out of the undisclosed income. In the instant case before us is also the issue in dispute is whether the assessee is found to be owner of the tangible ... assets and whether such tangible assets have been acquired by the assessee using the relevant undisclosed income before the date of the search. The assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1903/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

provisions, we find that for invoking explanation 5A, the assessee must be found to be a owner of tangible asset acquired out of the undisclosed income. In the instant case before us is also the issue in dispute is whether the assessee is found to be owner of the tangible ... assets and whether such tangible assets have been acquired by the assessee using the relevant undisclosed income before the date of the search. The assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1902/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

provisions, we find that for invoking explanation 5A, the assessee must be found to be a owner of tangible asset acquired out of the undisclosed income. In the instant case before us is also the issue in dispute is whether the assessee is found to be owner of the tangible ... assets and whether such tangible assets have been acquired by the assessee using the relevant undisclosed income before the date of the search. The assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1901/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

provisions, we find that for invoking explanation 5A, the assessee must be found to be a owner of tangible asset acquired out of the undisclosed income. In the instant case before us is also the issue in dispute is whether the assessee is found to be owner of the tangible ... assets and whether such tangible assets have been acquired by the assessee using the relevant undisclosed income before the date of the search. The assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1900/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 40

provisions, we find that for invoking explanation 5A, the assessee must be found to be a owner of tangible asset acquired out of the undisclosed income. In the instant case before us is also the issue in dispute is whether the assessee is found to be owner of the tangible ... assets and whether such tangible assets have been acquired by the assessee using the relevant undisclosed income before the date of the search. The assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act made variation in total income as compared

Akhtar Rasool, Moradabad vs. ACIT - 2, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 5025/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Rohatgi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

actually his salary/income that was withdrawn earlier and rotated from time to time and that same was re- deposited in cash, addition made as undisclosed income was justified. 6.2.2 In view of the above discussion and above mentioned judicial pronouncements, I am of the view that AO has rightly made

Maruti Trading Co, Jagatsingh Pur vs. Income Tax Officer, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 250/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.250/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Maruti Trading Co. Vs Ito, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep At/Po : Panisalia, Dist : Jagatsinghpur Pan No. :Aalfm 3677 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji, Dated 26.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Three Additions Have Been Made In The Assessment. The First Addition Was For An Amount Of Rs.43,517/-, Which Was The Alleged Difference Between The Turnover As Disclosed In The Vat Return & The Turnover Disclosed In The It Return. The Assessee Was Unable To Produce Any Vouchers/Bills In Support Of Its Claim Either Before The Ao Or Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Prove The Genuineness Of The Said Purchases. In Absence Of The Same The Ao Has Rightly Made The Addition & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rightly Upheld The Same. Accordingly, The Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Stands Upheld.

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands upheld. 2 3. In regard to the second issue of addition of Rs.35,633/- on account of undisclosed income received from Hindustan Unilever Limited, it was the submission of the ld. AR that the AO has held that this amount has not been

Sunil K Epari, America vs. ACIT Intl Tax, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.101/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sunil K Epari, Vs Acit, International Taxation, 123, Putnam Way Silver Spring Bhubaneswar Mechanicsburg, Foreign, United States Of America Pan No. :Abxpe 7883 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pranaya Kumar Mishra & Shri Prashant Mishra, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22, Dated 28.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 11 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Of Application Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 11 Days Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are In Dispute. The First Addition Is In Respect Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.15,99,000/- & The Second

For Appellant: Shri Pranaya Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

A.Y.2017-2018. The transaction having been done only through bank account that too through NRE account only, it cannot be said that the transactions are undisclosed income of the assessee. This being so, the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) of Rs.65

Dilbag Singh, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

The appeal stand partly allowed accordingly

ITA 924/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 69

Kalyan Yojana, 2016’ (PMGKY) has been proposed in the Bill. The declarant under this regime shall be required to pay tax @ 30% of the undisclosed income, and penalty @10% of the undisclosed income. Further, a surcharge to be called ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Cess’ @33% of tax is also proposed ... levied. In addition to tax, surcharge and penalty (totaling to approximately 50%), the declarant shall have to deposit 25% of undisclosed income in a Deposit Scheme to be notified by the RBI under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme, 2016’. This amount is proposed to be utilised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1615/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

that such material is incriminating in t such material is incriminating in nature leading to the conclusion of nature leading to the conclusion of undisclosed income. There has to be a here has to be a contemporaneous recording of satisfaction by the AO linking the seized contemporaneous recording of satisfaction

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1614/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

that such material is incriminating in t such material is incriminating in nature leading to the conclusion of nature leading to the conclusion of undisclosed income. There has to be a here has to be a contemporaneous recording of satisfaction by the AO linking the seized contemporaneous recording of satisfaction

“undisclosed income”

Leading authorities on undisclosed income

Judgments citing undisclosed income

Anakala Sunitha, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

Krypton Distributors LLP (Earlier Known As Krypton Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Sobha Chand Bhansali, Kolkata

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

P.N. Pandian, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Construction, Pune

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Trig Detectives Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Akhtar Rasool, Moradabad vs. ACIT - 2, Moradabad

Maruti Trading Co, Jagatsingh Pur vs. Income Tax Officer, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep

Sunil K Epari, America vs. ACIT Intl Tax, Bhubaneswar

Dilbag Singh, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai