← 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

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Aayakarbhavan, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

assessee could not be able to reconcile the difference worked out by the A.O. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the undisclosed income in the form of fixed deposits has been explained by the assessee with reference to promissory notes, vis-à-vis return of income has been reconciled

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 796/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

assessee could not be able to reconcile the difference worked out by the A.O. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the undisclosed income in the form of fixed deposits has been explained by the assessee with reference to promissory notes, vis-à-vis return of income has been reconciled

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 795/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

assessee could not be able to reconcile the difference worked out by the A.O. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the undisclosed income in the form of fixed deposits has been explained by the assessee with reference to promissory notes, vis-à-vis return of income has been reconciled

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Noida vs. Strawberry Farmer Agro Products, Noida

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4091/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Strawberry Farmer Agro Income Tax, Central Products Circle-I, Office Of The C-3, Sector-7, Noida, Deputy Commissioner Of Gautam Budh Nagar, Income Tax, Central Noida, Up 201301 Circle -0I, Noida, Noida, Up 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxfs6899J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Finally, the income to the tune of Rs.2,41,16,506/- received on account of interest other than interest on securities was considered as undisclosed income and added in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and further Rs.35,287/- on account of interest ... other than interest on securities added in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income. The assessee preferred appeal and made a particular statement that the assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings until it received the letter dated 22.05.2024 for recovery of outstanding demand and then tried

Anoop Jain HUF, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

case of assessee on 11.10.2018, no incriminating material whatsoever was found and seized containing any entry/evidences leading to belief that assessee has earned undisclosed income pertaining to the year under appeal. Ld. AR submits that in the case of assessee, return of income was filed ... carried out (i) as a result of search in his own case u/s 132 of the Act; Such material must contain entries representing (ii) undisclosed income from unrecorded transactions or undisclosed assets; Such material should be related to assessee's own affairs (iii) 23. In the case

Anoop Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4042/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

case of assessee on 11.10.2018, no incriminating material whatsoever was found and seized containing any entry/evidences leading to belief that assessee has earned undisclosed income pertaining to the year under appeal. Ld. AR submits that in the case of assessee, return of income was filed ... carried out (i) as a result of search in his own case u/s 132 of the Act; Such material must contain entries representing (ii) undisclosed income from unrecorded transactions or undisclosed assets; Such material should be related to assessee's own affairs (iii) 23. In the case

Ritu Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

case of assessee on 11.10.2018, no incriminating material whatsoever was found and seized containing any entry/evidences leading to belief that assessee has earned undisclosed income pertaining to the year under appeal. Ld. AR submits that in the case of assessee, return of income was filed ... carried out (i) as a result of search in his own case u/s 132 of the Act; Such material must contain entries representing (ii) undisclosed income from unrecorded transactions or undisclosed assets; Such material should be related to assessee's own affairs (iii) 23. In the case

Income Tax Officer, Sanjay Place Agra vs. Gunjan Gupta Batra, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 290/AGR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhincome Tax Officer, Vs. Gunjan Gupta Batra, Ward 2 (1), Agra. A - 45, Sector 26, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Abupg5419J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

opening balance as on 01.04.2014 is nil. Accordingly, he treated the entire closing capital declared by the assessee as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC, Delhi and filed a detailed submissions which is reproduced at pages

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 313/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50C

Invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act the Ld. AO brought difference of capital gain of ₹2,93,33,256/- to tax as undisclosed income vide an assessment order dt. 29/09/2021 framed u/s 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT invoked the provisions of section

Navnirman Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

unsecured loans of Rs.2,18,00,000/- received by the assessee company from its sister concern viz; Cresent Dealer Pvt Ltd., as its undisclosed income on the alleged ground that the assessee company failed to prove source of its source and furthermore on the alleged ground that the creditworthiness ... garb of loan from a company purchased by the assessee as through away price without any cogent reason. Accordingly, he treated the amount as undisclosed income of the assessee company credited in the books of account in the garb of loan and added back the same to the total income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Vivek Gupta, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1557/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 68

therein, during the course of search, made a categorical admission under section 134 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 ... discloser being not voluntary and extracted by the department in creating a coercive situation cannot be relied solely to be basis of addition as undisclosed income. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal while relying upon various case laws of the higher authorities observed that it is well settled legal

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 4(3), Kolkata vs. Privi Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

Accordingly the ground No. 2 is dismissed by upholding the order of Ld

ITA 1456/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

therein, during the course of search, made a categorical admission under section 134 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 ... discloser being not voluntary and extracted by the department in creating a coercive situation cannot be relied solely to be basis of addition as undisclosed income. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal while relying upon various case laws of the higher authorities observed that it is well settled legal

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Ei Resorts & Clubs Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3926/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

misconception of fact and law. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet ... March 2003 and the subsequent Circular F. No. 286/98/2013 dated 18th December 2014 both of which explicitly caution the Department against obtaining confessions of undisclosed income during search or survey operations. These circulars direct that assessments must be founded upon material evidence rather than unverified admissions. The counsel submitted that

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. E I Resorts and Clubs Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3886/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

misconception of fact and law. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet ... March 2003 and the subsequent Circular F. No. 286/98/2013 dated 18th December 2014 both of which explicitly caution the Department against obtaining confessions of undisclosed income during search or survey operations. These circulars direct that assessments must be founded upon material evidence rather than unverified admissions. The counsel submitted that

Shri Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 37/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 131

Thakkar 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming a high pitched addition of Rs. 22,88,34,108/- as undisclosed income of the Appellant which in fact is the total peak credit in the Singapore Bank Account of a Non Resident Offshore Trust known ... would still persist that the aforementioned bank accounts belong to the assessee and they are ultimately beneficiaries of the fund and treat it as undisclosed income of the assessee. This vital piece of information and clarification by a Sovereign Authority clinches the issue in favour of the assessee that neither

Tarun Nandkumar Seksaria, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3239/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai. 2. The details of the additions made can be classified into 2 parts- undisclosed income under section 69A/69B on account of unaccounted investment in land situated at Dhokawde & Dapoli and capital gains on sale of shares of Veda Real ... misconception of fact and law. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet

Ei Beneficiary Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3230/Mum/2025

ITA 3236/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

various assessment years aggrieved by the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai. 2. The addition is made as undisclosed income under section 69A/69B on account of unaccounted investment in land situated at Dhokawade, where in addition has been made in the hands of following assesse ... misconception of fact and law. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet

Ei Beneficiary Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3230/Mum/2025

ITA 3235/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

various assessment years aggrieved by the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai. 2. The addition is made as undisclosed income under section 69A/69B on account of unaccounted investment in land situated at Dhokawade, where in addition has been made in the hands of following assesse ... misconception of fact and law. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet

Ei Beneficary Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

ITA 3234/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

various assessment years aggrieved by the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–50, Mumbai. 2. The addition is made as undisclosed income under section 69A/69B on account of unaccounted investment in land situated at Dhokawade, where in addition has been made in the hands of following assesse ... misconception of fact and law. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3230/Mum/2025

ITA 3231/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

various assessment years aggrieved by the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai. 2. The addition is made as undisclosed income under section 69A/69B on account of unaccounted investment in land situated at Dhokawade, where in addition has been made in the hands of following assesse ... misconception of fact and law. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had elevated mere notings in a an excel sheet into conclusive proof of undisclosed income, without undertaking the most rudimentary verification or establishing any nexus between such notings and real-world transactions. The so-called incriminating excel sheet