← All Phrases

“statement under section 132(4)”

Search & SeizureSection 132(4)Section 132(4)692 judgments

The decision most relied on for statement under section 132(4) is Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (281 CTR 241), cited in 1,335 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on statement under section 132(4)

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

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. S. Khader Khan Son
352 ITR 480 · 2013 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

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.

Judgments citing statement under section 132(4)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3923/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

para 6 & 8 of paper-book. Statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 07.04.2019 and 08.04.2019 Mr. Lokesh Kumar in his statement under Section 132(4) inter- alia stated that there was no actual business relation between LANCO and the five companies to whom the work was sub- contracted (questions ... 132(4), wherein, he admitted to have provided accommodation entries to the assessee. Hon’ble High Court considering the question “whether a statement under Section 132(4) constitutes incriminating material for carrying out assessment under S. 153(A) of the Act”, observed at page 390: “The Revenue’s case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. M. B. Power (Madhaya Pradesh) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3874/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

para 6 & 8 of paper-book. Statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 07.04.2019 and 08.04.2019 Mr. Lokesh Kumar in his statement under Section 132(4) inter- alia stated that there was no actual business relation between LANCO and the five companies to whom the work was sub- contracted (questions ... 132(4), wherein, he admitted to have provided accommodation entries to the assessee. Hon’ble High Court considering the question “whether a statement under Section 132(4) constitutes incriminating material for carrying out assessment under S. 153(A) of the Act”, observed at page 390: “The Revenue’s case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 20, Delhi vs. M.B. Power (Madhaya Pradesh) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3870/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

para 6 & 8 of paper-book. Statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 07.04.2019 and 08.04.2019 Mr. Lokesh Kumar in his statement under Section 132(4) inter- alia stated that there was no actual business relation between LANCO and the five companies to whom the work was sub- contracted (questions ... 132(4), wherein, he admitted to have provided accommodation entries to the assessee. Hon’ble High Court considering the question “whether a statement under Section 132(4) constitutes incriminating material for carrying out assessment under S. 153(A) of the Act”, observed at page 390: “The Revenue’s case

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, South East Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3850/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

para 6 & 8 of paper-book. Statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 07.04.2019 and 08.04.2019 Mr. Lokesh Kumar in his statement under Section 132(4) inter- alia stated that there was no actual business relation between LANCO and the five companies to whom the work was sub- contracted (questions ... 132(4), wherein, he admitted to have provided accommodation entries to the assessee. Hon’ble High Court considering the question “whether a statement under Section 132(4) constitutes incriminating material for carrying out assessment under S. 153(A) of the Act”, observed at page 390: “The Revenue’s case

Sharad Sarawgi, Giridih vs. ACIT, C. C., Dhanbad

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

ITA 424/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.424/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sharad Sarawgi….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Sarawgi Sadan, Dumri Road, Giridih, Jharkhand- 815301. [Pan: Acspj2613G] Vs. Acit, C.C-Dhanbad………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ci(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Part Of The Saraogi Group. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Group On Various Dates, Along With A Survey Under Section 133A Of The Act At Certain Business Premises Of The Group. During The Course Of Search, Cash Aggregating To ₹2,15,50,000 Was Found From The Bedroom Of Shri Santosh Kumar Saraogi. In The Statement Recorded Under Section 132(4), It Was Stated That Cash Of ₹21,20,000 Belonged To The Present Assessee, While The Balance Amount Belonged To Other Concerns. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) For Ay 2021–22 Declaring Total Income Of ₹4,66,180. Subsequently, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

hands of two different persons, once its ownership is determined and accepted by the Department. He further contended that the statement under section 132(4) of the Act stood explained and superseded by subsequent statement under section 131(1A) of the Act, which was accepted by the Department. When ... subsequent statement recorded under section 131(1A) is accepted by the Revenue and acted upon, earlier statement under section 132(4) loses its evidentiary value. 2 I.T.A. No.424/Ran/2024 Sharad Sarawgi 5. On the other hand the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the cash

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3515/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509

Purushuttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 3514/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3513/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3512/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3511/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3510/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3509/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509

Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1724/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

complete the assessment based on the seized material, statements recorded and available records. 4.1 During the search proceedings, the assessee’s statement under section 132(4) was recorded on oath on 08.03.2022, 09.03.2022 and 10.03.2022. In these statements, as reproduced in the assessment order, the assessee admitted that ... rely on any specific incriminating document establishing unexplained investment or unexplained money. Instead, the AO placed primary emphasis on the assessee’s statement under section 132(4) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1713&1724/Ahd/2024 ACIT Vs. Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah & Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah vs. ACIT Asst. Year

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1713/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

complete the assessment based on the seized material, statements recorded and available records. 4.1 During the search proceedings, the assessee’s statement under section 132(4) was recorded on oath on 08.03.2022, 09.03.2022 and 10.03.2022. In these statements, as reproduced in the assessment order, the assessee admitted that ... rely on any specific incriminating document establishing unexplained investment or unexplained money. Instead, the AO placed primary emphasis on the assessee’s statement under section 132(4) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1713&1724/Ahd/2024 ACIT Vs. Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah & Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah vs. ACIT Asst. Year

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangalore vs. Marla Kallaje Prashanth, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2056/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Vs. Shri. Marla Kallaje Prashanth, Circle –1, A.J Hospital, Kuntikana, Mangalore. Mangalore – 575 004,Karnataka. Pan :Aexpm 8166 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Kamath, Ca Revenue By : Shri.Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

witness by anybody. Had this gift deed been available at the time of search assessee would have brought out in his statement under section 132(4) of the Act. For the completeness of gift both donor and donee should sign on the gift deed and the content of the gift

Bangar Raju Penmetsa, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1178/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 250

that the hand loan of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- was received and the same will be repaid within 12 months. A statement under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act was recorded from Shri P. Bangar Raju on 08.02.2019 and confronted with the documents found during the course ... assessee's premises, and the name of assessee is mentioned therein. The seized document has been acknowledged by appellant in the sworn statement under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act. The confirmation letter from Opus Holdings was dated and signed, and was accompanied by blank signed cheques. These documents

ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1648/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1647 & 1648/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, 6/24, Eb Colony, 1St Main Road, Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Tambaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Aakcs6317F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)–20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

drives containing alleged cash transactions of payments and receipts to various individuals and few concerns were found. Consequent to search, statement under section 132(4) of the Act has been recorded from Shri S.T. Nedunselian on 09.01.2017. On perusal of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has noted

ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1647/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

drives containing alleged cash transactions of payments and receipts to various individuals and few concerns were found. Consequent to search, statement under section 132(4) of the Act has been recorded from Shri S.T. Nedunselian on 09.01.2017. On perusal of the impugned order, the Id. CIT(A) has noted

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

condition for invoking the provisions of section 271AAB that the said income disclosed by 4 ITA No.261-263/CTK/2025 the assessee in the statement under section 132(4) is an undisclosed income as per the definition provided under section 271AAB. Therefore, the AO in the proceedings uno section 271AAB has to examine

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

condition for invoking the provisions of section 271AAB that the said income disclosed by 4 ITA No.261-263/CTK/2025 the assessee in the statement under section 132(4) is an undisclosed income as per the definition provided under section 271AAB. Therefore, the AO in the proceedings uno section 271AAB has to examine