“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

Gopal Shashidhara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalaore

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

ITA 749/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

made without any incriminating material. Apart from the cash seizure, no documents were found in the search to prove that the assessee had undisclosed income. The AO relied only on the assessee’s statement u/s 131 of the Act, which cannot by itself be treated as incriminating evidence

Gopal Shashidhara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 748/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai vs. Gaurav Investments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

For Appellant: Shri Kshitiji Kasi ViswanathFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43C

assessment order for the block period from 1-4-1989 to 10-22000 was passed on 28-02-2002 at a total undisclosed income of Rs. 85,00,000/-. The tax was charged as prescribed in section 113 of the Act. Subsequently, a proviso was inserted

Sumati G Gupta Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 4690/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Sumati G Gupta Securities Income Tax Officer- Private Limited 13(2)(1) C/O – 2Nd Floor, Geeta Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sion Circle, Sion East, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aaacb3475H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Margav Shukla & Shri Shubham Shah, Ld. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge,Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012- 13. 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is Delay 114 Days In Filing Of Instant Appeal. The Assessee By Filling Application For Condonation Of Delay, Along With Duly Sworn Affidavit, Has Demonstrated The Reason For The Delay To Effect That The Assessee Company Was Dissolved & Struck Off From The Register Of The Companies With Effect From 31.08.2016. However Subsequently The 2 Sumati G Gupta Securities Private Limited Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice Dated 28.03.2019 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Passing The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2019 U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act & Making The Addition Of Rs.3,87,673 U/S 68 Of The Act Being Undisclosed Income.

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge,Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 68

Order dated 18.12.2019 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and making the addition of Rs.3,87,673 u/s 68 of the Act being undisclosed income. 3. The Assessee challenged the said addition along with reopening of the proceeding as well as Assessment Order, by filing the first appeal before

Crystal Thermotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 78/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

short, the Act) in the case of Gajanan Sidhi Viay group of cases on 17.08.2017 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. The assessee admitted

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Pradeep Jain, Jaipur

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 955/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)

total debit balance is Rs. 4,12,63,105/- and credit balance is Rs. 1,35,89,501/-) should not be considered "as your undisclosed income and added back to the relevant year.” 7. In his reply, the assessee also stated that transactions recorded on Exhibit-11, related to offline ... para 6.5 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the said claim of the assessee, and accordingly, he concluded thatsaid undisclosed income of the assessee be treated as covered by Section 68 of the Act. 18. While dealing with the abovesaid claim and contention raised

Pradeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 938/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)

DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh vs. M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1306/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1285/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1286/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Dcit Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Chandigarh. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Manohar Infrastructure & बनाम/ Central Circle-1 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Vs. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

aggregate disclosure made by it for Rs.6.50 Crores u/s 132(4) for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 to cover up the loose papers, cash, undisclosed income etc. 3.4 However, Ld. AO rejected assessee’s submissions on the ground that summons u/s 131 were issued to the sellers and their statement

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1286/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1285/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

Geeta Vipulkumar Chaudhary, Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle Mehsana, Mehsana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)

assessee should be 40% of the gross agricultural receipt and accordingly the excess expense of Rs.8,14,054/- was held as incurred out of undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 06.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.67

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Ypa Restaurant Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 940/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

deleted on the ground that the AO had no incriminating material for the period after 22.10.2016 and therefore he cannot extrapolate the undisclosed income on the basis of undisclosed income of the 1st half of the year. Page 3 of 9 ITA No. 940 /DEL/2024 ACIT Vs. YPA Restaurant ... profits for the part of year after 22.10.2016 which is not covered by search. We find that the AO has made additions of undisclosed income on account of suppressed sales and profits for part of the year after Page 4 of 9 ITA No. 940 /DEL/2024 ACIT Vs. YPA Restaurant

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vng Impex P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 5917/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

Vigil Real Estate for which the actual payment was made only on 18.06.2012. Therefore, AO treated the abovesaid expenditure declaration of liability as undisclosed income u/s68 of the Act. Accordingly, AO made the abovesaid addition. 4. Ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that AO observed from the Profit & Loss account

Rondla Pushpasena Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.257/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Rondla Pushpasena Vs. Income Tax Officer Reddy, Hyderabad Ward 1 Pan:Cuhpr3280A Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.V Koteshwaramma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Rondla Pushpasena Reddy (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 31.01.2022 For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Smt.V Koteshwaramma, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

evidences were found indicating collection of donations by Medical College over and above the regular fees prescribed by the Government. The medical college admitted undisclosed income of Rs.40,45,00,000/- on account of Page 2 of 7 ITA No 257 of 2025 Rondla Pushpasena Reddy such donations. On verification

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Ramavtar Vijayvargiya, Jaipur

8. As a result, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed being not maintainable

ITA 953/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, While Challenging Order Dated 05.04.2025, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Whereby The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Allowed & The Assessment Order Dated 03.12.2019 Has Been Set-Aside. 2. On The Other Hand, The Assessee Has Filed Cross-Objections To The Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Opposing The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153CSection 253(4)

Ramesh Manihar Group on 07.01.2016, on receipt of information that the assessee was associated with the said group and had paid cash loans from undisclosed income, and received interest income on said loans. Consequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.3.2019, after approval

Asha Baderia, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 16/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Deepak, proprietor M/s Agarwal Iron Stores, totaling to Rs. 25,25,000/- which had been given by Sourav Baderia, out of his undisclosed income for the year 2016-17 in favour of the assessee. Sh. Saurabh Baduria had already surrendered this amount and paid due taxes upon it. Therefore

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

transactions or his creditworthiness by proving his monetary ability to make such gifts of substantial amount, gift amount Was to be treated as undisclosed Income and confirmed addition made by Ld.JAO. Headnotes are reproduced as below for a ready reference ~ ‘Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits ... Gift) - Assessment year 200910 - Assesses claimed to have received gift from his NRI brother - Assessing Officer treated it as assessee’s undisclosed income on ground that same was not real and Genuine - assessee's brother, apart from furnishing his employment particulars, confirmed gift that he had made - Details of utilization

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri Apparao Mukkamala, Usa

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

under regular provisions of Section 143, 147 and 148. The Assessing Officer (for short 'AO') under the special provisions had to assess only the undisclosed income with regard to the block period (which prior to 01.06.2001 was ten years and after 01.06.2001 was six years) preceding the financial year ... which search was conducted, by passing a single order. The undisclosed income was to be taxed at special rate specified under Section 113. The block assessment was independent of the regular assessment, resulting in parallel proceeding for assessment of regular income and the undisclosed income. 10. Finance Act, 2003 introduced

Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(3), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 930/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Urja Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vikas Nigam Ltd, 2(3), Vs. 1 Urja Bhawan, Bhopal Link Road Nos.2, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aabcm1097M) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253

made on account of “difference amount of interest income earned”. Addition of Rs.2,37,533/- was made on account of undisclosed income. That the aforesaid assessment order is dated 23.02.2016 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Renu Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

confirm the same.” Even when the assessee (Syed Rizwan Murtza) in this case was proved to be in default of undisclosed income the court had applied the gross profit rate to the undisclosed sales, then in this case (Renu Agarwal) all the transactions had been executed in transparent manner