← All Phrases

“survey under section 133A”

Search & SeizureSection 133ASection 133A734 judgments

The decision most relied on for survey under section 133A is CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (352 ITR 480), cited in 581 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on survey under section 133A

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.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
300 ITR 157 · 2008 · High Court
452
citing judgments

A statement recorded under duress during a survey, if subsequently retracted, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for an income-tax assessment; the assessment should instead rely on audited accounts.

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT
263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court
266
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals
335 ITR 259 · 2011 · High Court
149
citing judgments

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed if the amount of tax sought to be evaded is nil under Explanation 4(c), such as when the assessment results in a refund even after an addition to income. The conditions stipulated in the explanations to section 271(1)(c) must be unambiguously met for penalty imposition.

CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works
328 ITR 384 · 2010 · High Court
113
citing judgments

Statements recorded and materials collected during a survey under Section 133A are not made on oath, unlike those under Section 132(4), and thus are not conclusive evidence; an income addition cannot be made solely based on such statements.

Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (
373 ITR 9 · 2015 · High Court
86
citing judgments

Additions made for amounts surrendered during a search or survey operation are justified if the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory and bona fide explanation for the surrendered amount or to substantiate its retraction.

Bachittar Singh v. CIT
328 ITR 400 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

A statement recorded under section 133A, though not possessing the same evidentiary value as a sworn statement under section 132(4), cannot be considered irrelevant material and can be relied upon, especially when the assessee fails to produce regular books of account.

Bansal v. ACIT
63 Taxmann.com 199 · 2015 · ITAT
59
citing judgments

A statement made or income surrendered during search or survey proceedings, especially if later retracted, requires corroborating evidence to form the basis of an assessment, aligning with CBDT instructions to focus on evidence collection rather than confessions.

Judgments citing survey under section 133A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Pacific Mining Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 1984/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1983/Del/2024 Assessment Year- 2012-13 Ita No.1984/Del/2024 Assessment Year- 2013-14 Ita No.1985/Del/2024 Assessment Year- 2014-15 Ita No.1986/Del/2024 Assessment Year- 2015-16

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT DR

other companies at B-16, Sector-2 Noida, and various incriminating documents were found & seized which indicated transactions with the Assessee Company. Subsequently, survey under Section 133A of the IT Act was carried at the business premises of the assessee Le A-470/13 second Floor. Praksh Complex, Shakarpur, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7844/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. ---- He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his_ statement till ten months after the date of the search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7843/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. ---- He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. ---- He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7839/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. ---- He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his_ statement till ten months after the date of the search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -05, Delhi

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. ---- He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5519/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. ---- He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his_ statement till ten months after the date of the search

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 05, Delhi

ITA 5518/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. ---- He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his_ statement till ten months after the date of the search

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 05, Delhi

ITA 5516/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 05, Delhi

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act carries more weight than a statement made during a survey under Section 133A. He further submitted that the Assessee had not chosen to retract his statement till ten months after the date of the search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Ravishankar, Salem

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

ITA 2626/CHNY/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2626/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ravishankar, Income Tax, 735, Lrc Abarana Maaligai, Circle 1, Bazaar Street, Attur Tk, Salem. Salem 636 102. [Pan: Aahhr5519N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 55 Days. The Dcit Circle 1, Salem Filed A Condonation Petition For The Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Dcit Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] were issued. According to the Assessing Officer, a survey under section 133A of the Act conducted at the premises M/s. LRC Abarana Maaligai on 06.02.2019 and found that the assessee is the owner of bullion, jewellery or other

Piyush Ashok Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee in the present appeal in allowed

ITA 9092/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.” 3. As per the reason recorded for re-opening the assessment, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Vinay Unique Developers, an associate concern of Cosmos Group. During the proceedings that

Piyush Ashok Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee in the present appeal in allowed

ITA 9091/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.” 3. As per the reason recorded for re-opening the assessment, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Vinay Unique Developers, an associate concern of Cosmos Group. During the proceedings that

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8287/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

year, the assessee entered into a development agreement with the landowners for the construction of buildings named “Janaki Niwas” and “Gangadhar Niwas.” A survey under section 133A(2A) of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 12.03.2024. During the course of the survey proceedings

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

year, the assessee entered into a development agreement with the landowners for the construction of buildings named “Janaki Niwas” and “Gangadhar Niwas.” A survey under section 133A(2A) of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 12.03.2024. During the course of the survey proceedings