← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2233/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

series billing started only from May 2017. The AO found that, after the search proceedings in the assessee’s case, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the developer of the billing software “Power Lab,” namely M/s I Plantina Systems. In the statement

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2232/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

series billing started only from May 2017. The AO found that, after the search proceedings in the assessee's case, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the developer of the billing software “Power

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2231/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

series billing started only from May 2017. The AO found that, after the search proceedings in the assessee’s case, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the developer of the billing software “Power Lab,” namely M/s I Plantina Systems. In the statement

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2230/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

series billing started only from May 2017. The AO found that, after the search proceedings in the assessee's case, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the developer of the billing software “Power

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2229/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

series billing started only from May 2017. The AO found that, after the search proceedings in the assessee’s case, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the developer of the billing software “Power Lab,” namely M/s I Plantina Systems. In the statement

Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT - Central Circle, 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 2182/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

series billing started only from May 2017. The AO found that, after the search proceedings in the assessee’s case, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the developer of the billing software “Power Lab,” namely M/s I Plantina Systems. In the statement

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Amrutha Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1190/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)

several months before the search action at the assessee's premises. It is settled position of law that a statement recorded during a survey under section 133A of the Act does not carry the same evidentiary value as one recorded under oath during a search under section ... section 132 of the Act was carried out at the residence of managing partner of M/s Triveni Enterprises namely Shri Ashirwad Agarwal and survey under section 133A of the Act carried out at the corporate office and godown of M/s Triveni Enterprises as on 10th November 2021. During the search

Surya Kumar Gupta, Itarsi vs. Incometax Officer Ward 1, Itarsi

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

ITA 135/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Gupta Jewellers, Sarafa Bazar Ward-1, Itarsi

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69

appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Gupta Jewellers, Sarafa Bazar, Itarsi and a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 15.03.2018. During the course of survey, inventory

Bachu Rama Krishnamurthy, Tumkur vs. ITO Ward 2, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 399/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kupendra Setty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advoce – Stnading
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Page 2 of 4 3. The brief facts, as gathered from the records, are that the assessee was subjected to a survey under section 133A of the Act on 19.03.2012. Based on the findings of this survey, the AO recorded reasons on 05.09.2013, stating that cash deposits to the tune

Neha Goel, Faridabad vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 263

office of the Pr. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Faridabad vide his letter no. 5062 dated 27.02.2018, it has been found that a survey under section 133A was conducted by the investigation Wing, Kolkata on the premises of Shri Ashok Kayan and his company M/s Kayan Securities

Sh. Dilip Kumar, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

served to the assessee through ITBA Portal. In response to these notices, the assessee filed submissions which were examined accordingly. A survey under section 133A was conducted in case of assessee on 08.02.2018. During the survey proceedings certain documents by way of exhibits were found. As per these documents, assessee

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. Xentrix Studios Pvt. Ltd., on 03.05.2017. It was found that Shri ... section 153C of the Act proceedings as the AO has concluded the assessment based on the materials / information impounded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act and searchstatements under section 132(4) of the Actthe name and quantum is appearing in the list. Therefore

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1617/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal. ITA No. 1617/Bang/2024 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. Xentrix Studios Pvt. Ltd., on 03.05.2017. It was found that Shri ... section 153C of the Act proceedings as the AO has concluded the assessment based on the materials / information impounded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act and searchstatements under section 132(4) of the Actthe name and quantum is appearing in the list. Therefore

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 591/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

invalid in the absence of proper search warrant and search of the assessee’s premises. 21. The learned AR further submitted that a survey under Section 133A was already carried out on 03.05.2017, during which the assessee admitted to an unaccounted income on account of cash deposits in the bank ... assessee and no discovery of incriminating material during the search, vis-à-vis prior information already available to the Revenue through a survey under section 133A of the Act. 26.1 From the preceding discussion, we note that there was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act conducted

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 590/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

invalid in the absence of proper search warrant and search of the assessee’s premises. 21. The learned AR further submitted that a survey under Section 133A was already carried out on 03.05.2017, during which the assessee admitted to an unaccounted income on account of cash deposits in the bank ... assessee and no discovery of incriminating material during the search, vis-à-vis prior information already available to the Revenue through a survey under section 133A of the Act. 26.1 From the preceding discussion, we note that there was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act conducted

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 589/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

invalid in the absence of proper search warrant and search of the assessee’s premises. 21. The learned AR further submitted that a survey under Section 133A was already carried out on 03.05.2017, during which the assessee admitted to an unaccounted income on account of cash deposits in the bank ... assessee and no discovery of incriminating material during the search, vis-à-vis prior information already available to the Revenue through a survey under section 133A of the Act. 26.1 From the preceding discussion, we note that there was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act conducted

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 588/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

invalid in the absence of proper search warrant and search of the assessee’s premises. 21. The learned AR further submitted that a survey under Section 133A was already carried out on 03.05.2017, during which the assessee admitted to an unaccounted income on account of cash deposits in the bank ... assessee and no discovery of incriminating material during the search, vis-à-vis prior information already available to the Revenue through a survey under section 133A of the Act. 26.1 From the preceding discussion, we note that there was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act conducted

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 587/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

invalid in the absence of proper search warrant and search of the assessee’s premises. 21. The learned AR further submitted that a survey under Section 133A was already carried out on 03.05.2017, during which the assessee admitted to an unaccounted income on account of cash deposits in the bank ... assessee and no discovery of incriminating material during the search, vis-à-vis prior information already available to the Revenue through a survey under section 133A of the Act. 26.1 From the preceding discussion, we note that there was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act conducted

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 586/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

invalid in the absence of proper search warrant and search of the assessee’s premises. 21. The learned AR further submitted that a survey under Section 133A was already carried out on 03.05.2017, during which the assessee admitted to an unaccounted income on account of cash deposits in the bank ... assessee and no discovery of incriminating material during the search, vis-à-vis prior information already available to the Revenue through a survey under section 133A of the Act. 26.1 From the preceding discussion, we note that there was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act conducted

Dommallur Shivanna Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 339/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

invalid in the absence of proper search warrant and search of the assessee’s premises. 21. The learned AR further submitted that a survey under Section 133A was already carried out on 03.05.2017, during which the assessee admitted to an unaccounted income on account of cash deposits in the bank ... assessee and no discovery of incriminating material during the search, vis-à-vis prior information already available to the Revenue through a survey under section 133A of the Act. 26.1 From the preceding discussion, we note that there was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act conducted