← 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

Delhi vs. Sma Goyal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5583/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Sma Goyal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-29, I-45, Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi. Vs. Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110059. Pan:Aajcs4890G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjeev Batra, Adv. & Shri Kailash Khemani, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 In Appeal No. 08/10437/2019-20 Dated 25.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 23.10.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,35,580/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.98,00,000/- In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) In Kotak Mahindra Bank Account. During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings, Details Have Been Asked For Time To Time & The Assessing Officer Has Issued Summons To The Parties To Whom Sales Stated To Have Been Made In Cash. Since, Most Of The Parties Has Not Responded To The Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer, He Was Of The Opinion That Cash Deposited During

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return. Therefore, cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed

Maya Devi, Manoharpur, Chaibasa vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 298/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

various notices were issued to the assessee. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.24 lakh i.e. 50% of 48 lakhs as undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Act and further added Rs.4,39,000/- as deemed income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on account

Maya Devi, Manoharpur, Chaibasa vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 297/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

various notices were issued to the assessee. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.24 lakh i.e. 50% of 48 lakhs as undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Act and further added Rs.4,39,000/- as deemed income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on account

Maya Devi, Manoharpur, Chaibasa vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 296/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296-298/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. Ito-Ward-2(1), Nandpur, Jharkhand-833104 Jamshedpur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bgwpd 1450 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mittal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), All Dated 14.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ita No.296/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Assessment Made U/S.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Act. Ita No.297/Ran/2024 Is Relating To Penalty Order Passed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Act & Ita No.298/Ran/2024 Is Relating To The Penalty Order Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 3. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures, Therefore, All The Three Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

various notices were issued to the assessee. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.24 lakh i.e. 50% of 48 lakhs as undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Act and further added Rs.4,39,000/- as deemed income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on account