← 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

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

Ground No. 9 The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 1,20,41,540/- being undisclosed income on the basis of material seized and found from the possession and control of a third party namely M/S Bright Professionals ... with respect to the addition of Rs.1,20,41,540/- made on account of alleged cash receipts as undisclosed income of the assessee. Ground No. 10 and 13 (v) are with respect to the enhancing of the income on account of alleged undisclosed receipts. Since, all these grounds are pertaining

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

Ground No. 9 The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 1,20,41,540/- being undisclosed income on the basis of material seized and found from the possession and control of a third party namely M/S Bright Professionals ... with respect to the addition of Rs.1,20,41,540/- made on account of alleged cash receipts as undisclosed income of the assessee. Ground No. 10 and 13 (v) are with respect to the enhancing of the income on account of alleged undisclosed receipts. Since, all these grounds are pertaining

Sh. Satish Kumar, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1, Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 6/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.6/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Satish Kumar Dcit-Central Circle-1 बनाम/ (C/O Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) Sector-17 House No. 1238, Sector 22B Chandigarh-160017 Vs. Chandigarh-160022 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adrpk-8845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Geetinder Mann (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 10-11-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Of The Act On 26-12-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Application Of Higher Rate Of Tax @60% U/S 115Bbe. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Kalyan Yojana, 2016’ (PMGKY) has been proposed in the Bill. The declarant under this regime shall be required to pay tax @ 30% of the undisclosed income, and penalty @10% of the undisclosed income. Further, a surcharge to be called ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Cess’ @33% of tax is also proposed ... levied. In addition to tax, surcharge and penalty (totaling to approximately 50%), the declarant shall have to deposit 25% of undisclosed income in a Deposit Scheme to be notified by the RBI under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme, 2016’. This amount is proposed to be utilised

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1, Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 273/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 273/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Deepak Aggarwal Dcit-Central Circle-1 बनाम/ (C/O Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) Sector-17 H.No. 3035, Sector 27D Chandigarh-160017 Vs. Chandigarh-160019 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aexpa-3768-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Geetinder Mann (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 28-12-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Of The Act On 24-12-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Application Of Higher Rate Of Tax @60% U/S 115Bbe. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Kalyan Yojana, 2016’ (PMGKY) has been proposed in the Bill. The declarant under this regime shall be required to pay tax @ 30% of the undisclosed income, and penalty @10% of the undisclosed income. Further, a surcharge to be called ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Cess’ @33% of tax is also proposed ... levied. In addition to tax, surcharge and penalty (totaling to approximately 50%), the declarant shall have to deposit 25% of undisclosed income in a Deposit Scheme to be notified by the RBI under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme, 2016’. This amount is proposed to be utilised

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Chennai

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

ITA 1676/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 54

classify the cash consideration disclosed in the books and offered to tax in compliance with the law and wrongly presumed the same as undisclosed income that if the search had not been conducted, the assessee would not have disclosed the on-money consideration in the return of income. 6 I.T.A