← 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

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

legally recognized grounds under the Act. Moreover, the authorised officer did not record any satisfaction or belief that the materials placed under restraint represented undisclosed income or investment, which is mandatory before invoking section 132(3) of the Act. 8.3.3 The learned AR relied on several judicial precedents, including ... virtue of the authorisation granted under section 132(1) of the Act. He can after such inspection seize any incriminating materials which disclose undisclosed income for the purpose of block assessment under Chapter XIV of the Act. Merely because one more panchnama is drawn evidencing seizure of any material

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

legally recognized grounds under the Act. Moreover, the authorised officer did not record any satisfaction or belief that the materials placed under restraint represented undisclosed income or investment, which is mandatory before invoking section 132(3) of the Act. 8.3.3 The learned AR relied on several judicial precedents, including ... virtue of the authorisation granted under section 132(1) of the Act. He can after such inspection seize any incriminating materials which disclose undisclosed income for the purpose of block assessment under Chapter XIV of the Act. Merely because one more panchnama is drawn evidencing seizure of any material

S.R. Ravishankar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1085/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. S. R. Ravishankar, Vs. Acit, No.80, 1St Main Road, Central Circle – 2(4), Chamarajpet, Bengaluru- 560018. Bangalore. Pan : Aclpr 5363 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271A

observed that case of the assessee comes under section 271AAB(1) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.30 lakhs was imposed @ 10% on undisclosed income as per section 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned ... penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act of Rs. 30,00,000/- though declaration made during the search u/s. 132(4) does not qualify as undisclosed income. 1.1. The appellant has declared a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- as additional income for assessment year 2015-16. The declaration was made

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

short, the Act) in the case of M/s Nani Steel Group of cases located at Ranchi on 22/07/2015 during which the assessee offered undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and paid the due taxes while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A ... Section 271AAB of the Act as to at what percentage the penalty will be levied on the assessee for the undisclosed income not surrendered during the course of search. The assessee deserves an opportunity to plead before the ld. A.O before being visited with the penalty u/s 271AAB

Bhola Prasad Yadav, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1), Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 288/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

bank account was considered as undisclosed turnover and profit was calculated by applying the rate of 8% on the turnover thus determined and the undisclosed income of the assessee was computed at ₹6,70,904/-. The Ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee

Bala Devi, Jaipur Rural vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1306/JPR/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1306/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Bala Devi Dhani :Kankaraiwali, Saravatpura Gram: Amer, Via: Kalwad, Tehsil: Amer Jaipur 303 706 (Raj) Vs. बनाम The ITO Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CPCPD 3195 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे/Revenue by: Mrs. Harshi

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Harshita Choudhary, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 148

agriculture land out of his undisclosed sources and why the same may not be added to his total income treating the same as undisclosed income for the year under consideration. However, in response to the above the assessee made no compliance. Since the assessee has failed to explain the source ... investment of Rs. 14,45,240- made in purchase of agriculture land the same is treated to be made out of his undisclosed Income. Therefore, the undisclosed income of Rs. 14,45,240/- is treated as total income of the assessee From the above it is clear that assessee

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. The ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

genuine and consequentially treating the cash/SBNs deposited at Rs. 4,35,91,454/- in the bank accounts during the period of demonetization as undisclosed income of the assessee. 2. That the action of the learned CIT(A) while sustaining addition of Rs. 4,35,91,454/- is not justified because ... cash deposits amounting to Rs. 4,35,91,454/- in the bank accounts was added to the total income of the assessee as his undisclosed income during the relevant A.Y. 2017-18 Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the I.T.Act has also been initiated. 5. Ground of Appeal

Mohan Lal Bhapta, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward Rampur, Rampur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

material brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the withdrawn loan funds were used elsewhere or that the deposits represented any undisclosed income. The Ld. AR argued that mere suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof, and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 441/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Rs.50,51,750/- in the relevant assessment year. His only ground was that entire credits into the bank account cannot be treated as undisclosed income and it was out of past withdrawals, past savings and gifts from relatives. As per the appellant, the AO ought to have granted the benefit

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 440/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Rs.50,51,750/- in the relevant assessment year. His only ground was that entire credits into the bank account cannot be treated as undisclosed income and it was out of past withdrawals, past savings and gifts from relatives. As per the appellant, the AO ought to have granted the benefit

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Rs.50,51,750/- in the relevant assessment year. His only ground was that entire credits into the bank account cannot be treated as undisclosed income and it was out of past withdrawals, past savings and gifts from relatives. As per the appellant, the AO ought to have granted the benefit

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1093/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Rs.50,51,750/- in the relevant assessment year. His only ground was that entire credits into the bank account cannot be treated as undisclosed income and it was out of past withdrawals, past savings and gifts from relatives. As per the appellant, the AO ought to have granted the benefit

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1092/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Rs.50,51,750/- in the relevant assessment year. His only ground was that entire credits into the bank account cannot be treated as undisclosed income and it was out of past withdrawals, past savings and gifts from relatives. As per the appellant, the AO ought to have granted the benefit

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1089/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Rs.50,51,750/- in the relevant assessment year. His only ground was that entire credits into the bank account cannot be treated as undisclosed income and it was out of past withdrawals, past savings and gifts from relatives. As per the appellant, the AO ought to have granted the benefit

Narayan Dalmia, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 1121/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1121/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Narayan Dalmia,……….………….………...……Appellant Saluni, Jhantipahari, Bankura-722137, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpd3128P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(1), Bankura, Aayakar Bhawan, Chandmari Danga, Bankura-722101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 12, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

Assessing Officer considered the income of Rs.14,50,666/- resulting into addition tax of Rs.4,35,200/- determined at the time of survey as undisclosed income and added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act were initiated separately. The ld. Assessing

Satish Sawarmal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

repaid the un-secured loan in the subsequent year, then burden shifts to AO to prove otherwise that the said transaction was nothing but undisclosed income of the Assessee. 9.4 The Ld. Commissioner, even otherwise also taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ... basis of admission or confession during search action, it is necessary that some incriminating material must have been found to correlate the undisclosed income with such statement. (vii) Any statement recorded under section 132(4) cannot be considered as incriminating material found in the course of search as these

Lekhraj Jasraj Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4937/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay &
Section 147Section 68Section 69C

bogus companies was a manipulated affair to generate entries of bogus companies was a manipulated affair to generate entries of bogus LTCG to convert undisclosed income into tax free income as LTCG LTCG to convert undisclosed income into tax free income as LTCG LTCG to convert undisclosed income into ... shares of penny stock companies to generate bogus LTCG the shares of penny stock companies to generate bogus LTCG income and thereby converted undisclosed Income into tax free income and thereby converted undisclosed Income into tax free income and thereby converted undisclosed Income into tax free income without paying taxes

Narendra Rupchand Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4896/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Rupchand Madhani V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 32, Purnima Apartment, 42, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Ridge Road, Walkeshwar, Opp. 5(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Rekha Building, Mumbai– Mumbai – 400051, 400006, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpm5613L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 69A

property income to Rs. 1,14,573/- .Besides, the AO had made addition of Rs. 58,333/- being 1/3rd of Rs.1,75,000/- as Undisclosed income of the assessee. 6. We find that the appellate order has also been passed in ex- parte manner on account of non-compliance

Dattani Construction, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 2107/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: 03/11/2025
Section 148

treated the differential sum of comprising rent of ₹3,82,492/– and interest of and interest of ₹23,334/–, as comprising rent of undisclosed income and added the same to the total income of the undisclosed income and added the same to the total income of the undisclosed income

Gupta Subhash & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 34(3), Delhi, Civic Centre

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

ITA 610/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhiraja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

legal tender, thus requiring their deposit into a bank account. Simply asserting that the explanation or source of the cash deposit constitutes the undisclosed income of the Appellant and attributing it to demonetization lacks substantive evidence and relies solely on suspicion, conjecture, and unsubstantiated assumptions. 8.5 Reliance in this regard