“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

Durga Properties, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 46(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1119/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Durga Properties………………………………………………….…….……Appellant 29D, Bentick Street, Unit-A,B&C, 3Rd Floor, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aaffd5645P] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), Kolkata..………………………..………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This Case, The Return Of Income 2. For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.23,510/-. The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.87,03,000/- In Its Bank Account During The F.Y 2011-12. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) & Thereafter, Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act. Due To Failure To File Any Documentary Evidence By The Assessee Regarding The Said Cash Deposits In Bank, The Assessing Officer Held The Said Cash Deposits Of Durga Properties Rs.87,03,000/- As Undisclosed Income Of The Assessee & Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee.

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

assessee regarding the said cash deposits in bank, the Assessing Officer held the said cash deposits of Durga Properties Rs.87,03,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Balaji Impex, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5207/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

opinion on the degree of profit to be estimated. The present case being one of ad hoc estimation, founded neither on detection of undisclosed income nor on discovery of any fictitious transaction, the levy of penalty cannot be sustained. The penalty on this issue is, therefore, directed to be deleted

Majlis E Khuddamul Madari S, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5146/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 Majlis E Khuddamul Madari S, Ito(Exem), Ward-2(1), 14, Uasim Mansion, Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Koleueheri Village, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Chinchpada, Lal Baug, Parel, Kalina, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400098. Pan : Aaaam0694F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 25-06-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 250Section 68

that there was ample evidence that Cash was deposited in bank accounts, which is prima facie evidence against the assessee that the deposits are undisclosed income or gross receipts on which the Department can proceed in absence of good explanation. 12. The assessee has made cash deposits amounting

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Ld. ITO, Ward 35(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3447/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 270A

section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent ... Section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in Section 271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent

Hemant Naresh Agarwal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. 4, Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

Westfield shops were found during the search in case of Shankarlal Uttamchandani and applying such rates, on money was required to be taxed as undisclosed income. IT(SS)A No.68, 70 & ITA. No.170/Srt/2023 A.Ys 15-16, 18-19 & 20-21 Sh. Hemant N. Agarwal 7. On the other hand ... Agrawal had acquired the shops on account of distribution of unsold stock of the project amongst the partners. 1.2 The learned AO estimated alleged undisclosed income against distribution of 33 shops of project called Westfield Shopping Center developed by Shri Kuberji Developers wherein his father is one of the partners

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Pramod Chordia, Alwarpet

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2139/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2138&2139/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pramod Chordia Income Tax, Vs. No.112, St. Marys Road, Vidya Central Circle-2(1), Theertha Nagar, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai-600 018. [Pan:Aahpp0442L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

Section 139Section 271A

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that for imposing a penalty, under Section 271AAB of the Act, mere income admitted cannot be classified as "undisclosed income" but the Assessing Officer has to demonstrate how the income impugned is to be treated as "undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB ... ITAT Chennai & the decision Padam Chand Pungliya Vs ACIT (ITA No.112/Jp/2018) to hold that mere disclosure of income to avoid litigation due not constitute "undisclosed income" for the purposes of imposing penalty u/s 271AAB as nowhere in the assessment or appellate proceedings has the assessee taken such stand

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Pramod Chordia, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2138/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

Section 139Section 271A

Sri Vinayaga Builders and Homes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2104/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

also ex parte orders. For AY 2016-17, the AO is noted to have made addition of ₹3,67,41,000/- as the undisclosed income of the assessee ITA Nos.2103 & 2104/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) Sri Vinayaga Builders & Homes Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: from sale of property and also added

Sri Vinayaga Builders and Homes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Coporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2103/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

JPACK ledger under the name “SABARI.” The additions were accepted solely to avoid prolonged litigation and not due to any detection of undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, during the penalty proceedings, the assessee challenged the validity of the additions and provided adequate explanations to counter the Department

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

Vijay Kumar Sharma, Muzaffarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5401/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Gourav Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

assessee and held that assessee has deposited the amount of Rs. 10 lacs in cash in his saving bank account out of his undisclosed income and added the same in the hands of the assessee. However, in appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority sustained the addition. Against the above, assessee appealed

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4993/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

they were in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, thus, no addition can be made by AO on grossly inadequate material or rather no material at all and as such ... they were in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, thus, no addition can be made by AO on grossly inadequate material or rather no material at all and as such

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC 03, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4643/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

Caps (Topi) for AAP, Flags etc. are written which establishes that the expenses are incurred on election material by the assessee out of his undisclosed income. Further, the diary found from the office of assessee means that the assessee has control over the diary and the same must have been ... same was definitely maintained on the direction of assessee and the expenses incurred on these election materials have been made out of his undisclosed income. Therefore, as per discussion held above and on the basis of seized/incriminating material and findings made during the course of search as well as during

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Parv Bansal As L/H of Late Anil Kumar Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1739/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parv Bansal Vs Dcit L/H Of Late Shri Anil Kumar Central Circle-31 Bansal, 208, 2Nd Floor, S-524 New Delhi Vikas Marg Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aafpb2542K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit Vs Parv Bansal Central Circle-31 L/H Of Late Shri Anil Kumar New Delhi Bansal, 208, 2Nd Floor, S-524 Vikas Marg Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aafpb2542K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr & Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 254Section 68

side of the same i.e. incoming of funds and wherever the incoming of funds were short, the amounts of outgoing be also considered as undisclosed income. 8. As per Ld. AR, these directions clearly indicate that income of the assessee should be computed only to the extent of the cash ... cash and cheques were recorded, Revenue has allowed deduction on account of cheque transactions however, treated the cash transactions under the same code as undisclosed income of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the code used against both of the transactions i.e. in cheque and cash both

Vivaan Prakash, Bijnor vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1500/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Vivaan Prakash Vs Dcit/Acit (Central) S/O Vibhu Prakash Bansal, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Khatiyaan Street, Dhampur, Moradabad, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Pan:Dggpp9920P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Goel, Ca & Sh. Pravanv Yadav, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 14/06/2021 by making an addition of 10,54,665/- treating the same as undisclosed income of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the said addition, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order