← 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

DCIT- Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Radhamohan Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of the revenue challenging the decision of ld

ITA 1600/MUM/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Dcit - Central Circle-3(4), Radhamohan Marketing Mumbai Private Limited Room No. 25, Shanti Bhawan, 2Nd Vs. Floor, Near Brijwasi Sweet 198, Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aafcr5067C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 88/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1600/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Radhamohan Marketing Private Dcit - Central Circle-3(4), Limited Mumbai Room No. 25, Shanti Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Near Brijwasi Sweet 198, Vs. Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aafcr5067C (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 69A

undisclosed money which is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any maintained by him. Parliament has been serious about generation of undisclosed income and evasion of tax. Accordingly, appropriate provisions have been brought in IT Act, 1961 from time to time which will be clear from below paragraphs ... cent irrespective of the slab of income." Subsequent to demonetization announced on 8 November 2016, there were views expressed that the undisclosed income held in the form of demonetized currency can be deposited in the bank and the said amount can be offered for taxation under specified sections. Consequently

DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem

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

ITA 307/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

compared the value of closing stock between the standalone and consolidated statements and treated the difference of Rs.6,91,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page nos. 2 and 3 of the assessment order and submitted that the difference represents the value of closing

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem vs. DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 285/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

compared the value of closing stock between the standalone and consolidated statements and treated the difference of Rs.6,91,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page nos. 2 and 3 of the assessment order and submitted that the difference represents the value of closing

Priti Prajyot Potphode, Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Palghar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4058/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri. Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4058/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Priti Prajyot Potphode V/S. Income Tax Officer Umber Pada Wadare, बिधम Ward 3 Safale, Palghar 401102 Amba Wadi, Palghar, Maharashtra, Thane 401404 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajhpm9841M Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Tanmay Phadke-Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Which In Turn Arises From The Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act Passed By Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Extracted As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)] Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte In Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice. Thus, The Order Dated 26.08.2024 May Be Set Aside & The Matter May Be Restored Back To The File Of The Learned Commissioner (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.57,31,862/- as undisclosed income being unsustainable in law may be deleted. Miscellaneous ground: 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind, or amend any of the above grounds

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3836/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsumita Singhal Income Tax Officer, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. Vs. New Delhi. Pan:Acops9544H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.R. Singla, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [ ‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Delhi-6/10307/2017-18 Dated 14.03.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 30.01.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,05,360/- With Ito Ward-40(1), Delhi. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 29.07.2016 By The Same Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Another Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.09.2016 By The Ito, Ward-71(2), New Delhi. On 04.09.2017 The Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito, Ward No.17(4), New Delhi. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) By The Ito, Ward-17(4), Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.49,65,760/- After Making Additions Of Rs.42,48,000/- By Holding The Long Term Capital Gain As Bogus & Further Addition Of Rs.2,12,400/- Was Made As Unexplained Expenditure

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

dated 21.09.2017. 6. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while upholding the addition of gross sale value of shares as undisclosed income and ignoring the cost of purchase and selling expenses and thus framing the assessment without application of mind