← 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

Ankit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5507/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaankit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 35 (3), L – 153, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 052. (Pan : Amhpg1493N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 03.10.2024For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing, Trading, Sales Of Socks, Fabrics & Hosiery Etc. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 25.01.2018 For A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

income already offered and assessed is illegal and unsustainable." 7. Further with regard to the issue of cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and provisions of section 69A cannot be invoked when the assessee has already declared the source for cash deposit in the books of account ... cash sales are accepted and subsequent deposit of the said cash in a bank account cannot be treated as deposits made out of any undisclosed income, making addition u/s 68 unsustainable and addition so made is illegal as it results in double taxation of income already assessed

Jitendra Singh, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(3)(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 548/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Jitendra Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(5), 107/2, Babu Purwa Colony, Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Cvxps1754F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 12.07.2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 154 Passed By The Assessing Officer On 22.07.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That On Facts & In Law The Impugned Order Dated 12.07.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Initio. 2. That The Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Have Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order Without Considering The Request Of The Appellant That The Original Appeal Filed On 15.09.2019 For The Same A.Y. 2013-14 U/S 147/143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Before Cit(Appeals) Nfac Is Pending For Order So The Rectification Order U/S 154 By The A.O. For Enhancing The Demand Not Justified In Natural Justice. 3. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Not Follow The Provision U/S 115Bbe Properly As Per Law Of Income F Tax So, The Rectification Process U/S 154 Is Bad In Law. 4. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Levy Of Interest U/S 234A & U/S 234B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Original Appeal Filed On 15.09.2019 For The Same A.Y. 2013-14 U/S 147/143(3) Before Cit(Appeals) Nfac Is Pending For Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

that the profits had been distributed amongst them after deducting all expenses relating to examination. From the same, the ld. AO concluded that total undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 14,05,000/- had been earned by Late Vishnu Kumar Singh Baghel during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant