← All Phrases

“voluntary admission”

Search & SeizureSection 132(4)Section 132(4)73 judgments

The decision most relied on for voluntary admission is Kishore Kumar v. Dy. CIT (62 Taxmann.com 215), cited in 212 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on voluntary admission

Kishore Kumar v. Dy. CIT
62 Taxmann.com 215 · 2015 · Supreme Court
212
citing judgments

A sworn statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search and seizure operation is a strong piece of evidence for assessing undisclosed income, particularly when supported by subsequent actions like filing returns and paying taxes on the admitted income.

CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal
53 Taxmann.com 306 · 2015 · High Court
137
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation is akin to a statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be treated as a proven fact or clinching evidence on its own, serving merely as a basis for further investigation.

Pon Adithan v. Dy. Director, Narcotics Control Bureau
6 SCC 1 · 1999 · Reported
73
citing judgments

A retracted confession or statement can serve as corroborative evidence, but it cannot form the sole basis for an assessment or conviction without independent supporting material.

CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del)
86 ITD 13 · 2003 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

Additions cannot be made solely based on third-party information without corroborating evidence, especially when relying on section 132(4) admissions.

K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India
197 ITR 196 · 1992 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

A lawful assessment must be based on material evidence and cannot rely solely on an admission or statement, especially if obtained by inducement, threat, coercion, or improper means. The voluntary nature of a statement is a prerequisite for it to be acted upon, and authorities must apply their mind to subsequent retractions.

Roshan Beevi v. Jt. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Deptt
15 ELT 289 · 1984 · High Court
57
citing judgments

An authority must record its opinion before accepting an inculpatory statement made under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act; additions to income cannot be made solely based on such statements, as the assessment order may otherwise be vitiated.

Sri Ganesh Trading Company v. CIT
257 CTR 159 · 2013 · High Court
56
citing judgments

An addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search, especially if made under pressure or later retracted, is not sustainable without corroborative evidence. Similarly, additions based on uncorroborated loose papers or unaccounted cash receipts lacking corresponding assets are unsustainable.

Video Master v. JCIT
378 ITR 374 · 2015 · Supreme Court
56
citing judgments

A statement made by a partner during a search and seizure operation disclosing undisclosed income can be used as evidence to make an addition to the assessee's income, and such a disclosure is not considered a case of 'no evidence'.

Judgments citing voluntary admission

Skandhanshi Infra Projects, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 535/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

evidentiary value was adequately addressed by the AO, who highlighted: Instances of suppressed receipts, cash transactions, and discrepancies between recorded and actual turnovers. Further, voluntary admission of suppressed income by the appellant, further contradict the appellants claim. Thus, it is evident from the assessment order that AO has followed ... appellant voluntarily disclosed additional income of Rs.60 crores during the search proceedings, acknowledging discrepancies in the maintenance of accounts and cash transactions. Such voluntary admission further validates AO's reliance on the seized material to identify suppressed turnover. v) The appellant's argument that the seized material reflected “general discrepancies

Skanda Builders, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 532/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

evidentiary value was adequately addressed by the AO, who highlighted: Instances of suppressed receipts, cash transactions, and discrepancies between recorded and actual turnovers. Further, voluntary admission of suppressed income by the appellant, further contradict the appellants claim. Thus, it is evident from the assessment order that AO has followed ... appellant voluntarily disclosed additional income of Rs.60 crores during the search proceedings, acknowledging discrepancies in the maintenance of accounts and cash transactions. Such voluntary admission further validates AO’s reliance on the seized material to identify suppressed turnover. v) The appellant's argument that the seized material reflected “general discrepancies

Skanda Builders, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 530/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 518/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

evidentiary value was adequately addressed by the AO, who highlighted: Instances of suppressed receipts, cash transactions, and discrepancies between recorded and actual turnovers. Further, voluntary admission of suppressed income by the appellant, further contradict the appellants claim. Thus, it is evident from the assessment order that AO has followed ... appellant voluntarily disclosed additional income of Rs.60 crores during the search proceedings, acknowledging discrepancies in the maintenance of accounts and cash transactions. Such voluntary admission further validates AO's reliance on the seized material to identify suppressed turnover. v) The appellant's argument that the seized material reflected “general discrepancies

Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 515/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

appellant voluntarily disclosed additional income of Rs.60 crores during the search proceedings, acknowledging discrepancies in the maintenance of accounts and cash transactions. Such voluntary admission further validates AO's reliance on the seized material to identify suppressed turnover. v) The appellant's argument that the seized material reflected "general discrepancies ... evidentiary value was adequately addressed by the AO, who highlighted: Instances of suppressed receipts, cash transactions, and discrepancies between recorded and actual turnovers. Further, voluntary admission of suppressed income by the appellant, further contradict the appellants claim. Thus, it is evident from the assessment order that AO has followed

ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 311/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

evidentiary value was adequately addressed by the AO, who highlighted: Instances of suppressed receipts, cash transactions, and discrepancies between recorded and actual turnovers. Further, voluntary admission of suppressed income by the appellant, further contradict the appellants claim. Thus, it is evident from the assessment order that AO has followed ... appellant voluntarily disclosed additional income of Rs.60 crores during the search proceedings, acknowledging discrepancies in the maintenance of accounts and cash transactions. Such voluntary admission further validates AO’s reliance on the seized material to identify suppressed turnover. v) The appellant’s argument that the seized material reflected “general discrepancies

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

raised the following grounds of appeal: The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,53,47,650/- despite the assessee's voluntary admission during the survey regarding the undisclosed investments. Reliance is placed on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bannalal

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1581/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1580/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi Mumbai

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

ITA 1579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

ACIT I/C ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai., Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Naresh Manakchand Jain, Prabhadevi

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

ITA 1578/MUM/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. D.R
Section 153ASection 201Section 250

Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449(madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is a clear and categorical, voluntary admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity for a scrutinizing the documents and that would be good piece

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 645/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

made u/s. 69A of the Act. 12. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the other additions on the ground that the appellant had honoured the voluntary admissions made during the search and filed returns and paid taxes accordingly. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had considered the other grounds as infructuous. As against

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

made u/s. 69A of the Act. 12. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the other additions on the ground that the appellant had honoured the voluntary admissions made during the search and filed returns and paid taxes accordingly. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had considered the other grounds as infructuous. As against

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

made u/s. 69A of the Act. 12. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the other additions on the ground that the appellant had honoured the voluntary admissions made during the search and filed returns and paid taxes accordingly. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had considered the other grounds as infructuous. As against

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 642/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

made u/s.69A of the Act. 12. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the other additions on the ground that the appellant had honoured the voluntary admissions made during the search and filed returns and paid taxes accordingly. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had considered the other grounds as infructuous. As against

Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

made by the assessee in order to avoid litigation and to buy peace with the Department. He therefore submitted that since it is a voluntary admission of additional income, there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and hence, levy of penalty

Future Gaming and Hotel Services P Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 950/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - LdFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. CIT-DR a/w Ms. Anitha (Addl. CIT) – Ld.
Section 153ASection 271A

undisclosed income’ within the meaning of this Section. Applying the same to the facts of the present case, it could be concluded that voluntary admission which is so unrepresented could not be held to be ‘undisclosed income’ for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB. 11. We are also ... considered opinion that imposition of penalty is not automatic but it would apply on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because the voluntary admission has been made by the assessee which is not represented by any incriminating material found during the course of search action, the same would

ACIT., Central Circle 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member, Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 153A

appellant's father Sri K. Venkata Rao and HUF. The Id. AO has also failed to appreciate the fact that there are voluntary admission during the course of search proceedings. 4. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate the fact that though the appellant and his family members

Dr. Purvesh Mansukhlal Shah, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2952/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR
Section 131ASection 133A

supported by documentary evidence. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the AO, had refuted these claims on the ground that the assessee had made a voluntary admission of the undisclosed income during the survey and had confirmed the statement in the presence of two Chartered Accountants. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that ... survey, rather than waiting for over 16 months until the filing of his return in 2012. Given the overwhelming evidence, including the assessee's voluntary admission of earning a sum of Rs. 14 crores from land broking and his failure to provide any supporting evidence or reasonable explanation