← 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

Hemlata Paresh Surana, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5770/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Hemlata Paresh Surana I.T.O. Ward 19(1)(1), 4-A, 30-B, Taj Building, A. K. Mumbai Marg, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai Vs. – 400 036. Pan/Gir No. Abeps6199P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. M. Jain Respondent By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 48, Mumbai (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Sold 20,500 Shares Of Ammltd/Apu Marketing/Eject Marketing On A Total Consideration Of Rs. 14,92,810/- On Dated 01.02.2018 Through Online Platform/Bombay Exchange & Therefore Has Earned Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 12,87,180/- & Claimed The Same As Exempt U/S. 10(38) Of The Act. Hemlata Paresh Surana

For Appellant: Shri R. M. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, SR. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

findings of the AO and the disallowance of deduction claimed to the tune of Rs. 1,28,71,810/- which was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. 5. Having heard the parties and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record