“cash found during search”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 132128 judgments

The decision most relied on for cash found during search is CIT v. Indeo Airways Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 85), cited in 114 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cash found during search

CIT v. Indeo Airways Pvt. Ltd.

349 ITR 85 · 2012 · High Court

114

citing judgments

If revenue relies on entries of receipts in seized material, the corresponding expenditure must also be considered unless there is concrete evidence to disregard it. If documents found during a search are considered true and belong to the assessee, entries of expenditure recorded therein are also to be believed.

Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani v. ACIT

76 Taxmann.com 311 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Where a document found during a search is a copy of a ledger of an assessee company showing payments, the Assessing Officer has prima facie material to suggest satisfaction under section 153C was duly recorded, justifying a notice to the assessee.

449 (Madras), Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT

122 ITR 926 · High Court

citing judgments

Unexplained jewellery found during a search can be added to income, even if the assessee claims it was received back against purchase bills, especially when part of the unaccounted cash is deposited in the bank.

Sukh Ram v. ACIT

285 ITR 256 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

When a large sum of cash is found during a search, and the assessee fails to substantiate their claim that it belongs to an organization, the cash is treated as the assessee's own and added to their income under section 69A.

Ashokbhai H Jariwala v. ACIT

250 Taxmann 14 · 2017 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Evidence found during a search and seizure operation under section 132(4) can be used to make additions under sections 68, 69, and 69A, even if the assessee's statement is retracted.

Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

400 ITR 120 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

When assessing a partnership firm, the Assessing Officer can inquire into the source of credits introduced by partners, but cannot be compelled to investigate the 'source of the source' of those partners' funds under Section 68.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd.

172 Taxmann.com 462 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

The addition of unexplained cash credits under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the genuineness of transactions beyond the banking channel. Incriminating material found during search or survey actions, such as admissions of providing accommodation entries, can be used to support such additions.

CIT v. Lakshmi Hospital

347 ITR 367 · Reported

citing judgments

Entries found on loose papers during a search cannot, on their own, be considered material for making an addition to income. Such additions require corroborative evidence and proper inquiry.

Judgments citing cash found during search

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 580/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

Thus, cash balance as per regular books of accounts as on date of search in Rs. 62,91,465/-whereas cash found during search is Rs. 68,41,27%. Minor difference of Rs. 5,94,805/- represent savings & pin money of various family members. Hence the cash balance found during ... Gupta 17,60,511/- 18. Ms. Shalu Gupta 1,04,300/- 19. Smt. Shanti Devi 7,595/- Total 68,68,399/- Thus the cash found in search almost tally with the cash as per books of accounts and therefore the addition confirmed by the lower authorities is unjustified

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

appellant at the business premises. So, when the appellant was asked to furnish books along with cash bills to support the cash found during search then the appellant was not able to produce the same. Later on, the appellant called the accountant with his laptop in which the tally software

Dr. Manish Chhaparwal, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 53/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kothari, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 250

affirming the order of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Udaipur in making addition of Rs.19,50,000/- on account of cash found during search by treating unexplained cash and also taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, therefore, the addition on this account is totally ... affirming the order of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Udaipur in making addition of Rs.19,50,000/- on account of cash found during search by treating unexplained cash and also taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, therefore, the addition on this account is totally

Nishant Pitti, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2194/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Nishant Pitti, Vs Dcit, C-179, Vivek Vihar Area, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110095 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apkpp7345A

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhey Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

justified in sustaining addition of Rs.18,95,859/- out of total addition of Rs.43,86,000/- on account of cash found during search from the residential premises of the appellant by rejecting the explanation that the said amount of cash belonged to the appellants company Easy Trip Planners ... That the ld. CIT(A)-23 was not justified in upholding the action of AO in taxing the cash found during search u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2 Nishant Pitti 3. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was carried

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 433/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra Addl. CITa

Section 143(3)Section 234B

Delhi) para 16- 17(DPB 17-22) Read held “Search and seizure—Block assessment—Computation of undisclosed income—Cash found during search—Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 2 lakh from bank some time back and there is no material with the Department to show that this money had been spent ... refer Anand Prakash Soni v/s DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 97 (Jd) para 5-6 “Search and seizure—Block assessment—Computation of undisclosed income—Cash found during search—Assessee is entitled to furnish cash flow statement to explain the transactions when no books of account are maintained—In such circumstances

Ramesh Rajpal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 434/DEL/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding addition of Rs.1,99,450/- u/s 69 on the alleged ground of unexplained cash found during search even though there is no case of any unexplained cash. (ii) That the cash so found being fully explained and corroborated from regular

DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Atulah Contractor and Construction Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2438/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 The Dcit, Central Circle-29, New Delhi M/S. Atulah Contractors & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 10, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 Pan Aaccv 3487 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, CIT(DR)

Section 103Section 68

Kulwant Rai, the assessee had cited withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from his bank account as the source for cash found during search and the same was not accepted by the AO on the assumption that such withdrawn amount may have been spent for some other purposes

DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Bhanu Infrabuild P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2433/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, CIT(DR)

Anuj Sood, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 2

income from other sources of Rs. 1,92,788/- .The return of income does not in any way justify that the source of cash found during search belonged to Smt. Neelam Sood. The Assessing Officer of the appellant as well as Smt. Neelam Sood was same. After considering

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

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

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

been made to the explanatory notes of finance act, 1984 by which section 269ss was inserted. It was interalia mentioned that unaccounted cash found during search and seizure operations is often explained by tax payers as representing loans or deposits from various persons. With a view to countering this devise

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

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

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

Kulwant Rai (2007) 210 CTR 380 ( Delhi) para 16-17 Read held “Search and seizure—Block assessment—Computation of undisclosed income—Cash found during search—Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 2 lakh from bank some time back and there is no material with the Department to show that this money ... refer Anand Prakash soni v/s DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 97 (Jd) para 5-6 “Search and seizure—Block assessment—Computation of undisclosed income—Cash found during search—Assessee is entitled to furnish cash flow statement to explain the transactions when no books of account are maintained—In such circumstances

M/S S.D.Bansal Iron & Steel P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,81,250/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash found during search." 2 "On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,94,805/- made ... claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,81,250/- made by AO on account of physical cash found during search. 7. During search-proceeding, cash balance of Rs. 3,81,250/- was found from premise of assessee and the authorities seized

Bimal Krishan Sareen, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1778/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R K Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 69Section 69A

confirming the addition of Rs.2000000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 made by the assessing officer on account of cash found during search in lockers of the assessee. As the cash was saved out of cash withdrawls made from banks and gifts received from parents, relatives ... family. The same stand has been taken in 2 assessment proceedings without giving any evidences regarding the same. Therefore, source of cash found in search was un-explained. I have considered the facts of the case and find the appellant has not able to submit anything during the appellate proceedings

DCIT, CC, Gzbd vs. Anjali Mittal, Gzbd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 54FSection 54F(1)(b)Section 69A

deleted the addition of Rs. 1 crore made by the Ld. AO on account of difference in valuation of stock and excess cash found during search and supported by the surrender of the said amount by the son of assessee by recording his observations in para

Shri M A Khan, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 105/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

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

cannot be any further relief in the matter. Hence, the additions as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) are hereby upheld. Issue No. 27 – Cash found during search: 111. During search-proceeding, physical cash of Rs. 68,300/- was found in possession of assessee. When asked about source, the assessee submitted

Vimal Chand Jain, Gwalior vs. DCIT Central-I, Bhopal

ITA 509/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

erred in Vimal Chan Jain ITANo.509/Ind/2019 – AY 2014-15 Page 2 of 9 confirming addition of Rs.25,83,000/- on account of excess cash found during search as unexplained income is illegal, unjustified and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,83,000/- being excess cash found during search is heavily relying on statement u/s 132(4) rather than the fact that books on the date of search were incomplete is illegal, unjustified and bad in law.” 2. When the case was called, none appeared

Rashi Commercial Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1782/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Rashi Commercial Company V. Dcit – Central Circle – 6(1) 72-A, Mittal Tower Room No. 1905, 19Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafr1026K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

balance lying as cash received against alleged bogus losses. However, Assessing Officer rejected the above said submissions relating to the excess cash found during search and accordingly, proceeded to make the above excess cash as additional income u/s. 69A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ... assessee has declared the bogus loss in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 to the extent of ₹.13.40 crores. Therefore, the excess cash found during search is nothing but the cash available with the assessee out of the above declared bogus transactions. He prayed that the telescoping effect benefit

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Lokhandwala Infrasatructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 236/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 236/Mum/2015 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Lokhandwala Dcit Cen. Cir.– 8(3), Infrastructurepvt. Ltd. R. No. 659, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 54A, Jindal Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaace1568L (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Mani Jain, Ld. Ars सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.08.2014, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-38, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

shown as additional income in the return of income for assessment year under consideration. 3. Ld. AO noted that in fact total cash found during search was Rs. 1,04,28,300/-. However, the AO observed that the entire amount was seized which fact has been clarified during the course