← 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

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 338/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

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 337/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

Dommallur Shivanna Nandish, Bangalore 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 336/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

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 335/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

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

ITA 334/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri C Ramesh, C.A
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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

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 search statements under section 132(4) of the Act. During the course of recording of statement under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1615/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

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 search statements under section 132(4) of the Act. During the course of recording of statement under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1614/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

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 search statements under section 132(4) of the Act. During the course of recording of statement under section

Docket Tech Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru 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 1566/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

Narayana Rao Hebri, Sagar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2051/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 68

that the cash withdrawn was used for making tax payment. 5.5. Without prejudice and assuming without conceding that the statement recorded during the survey under section 133A is reliable, the Lower Page 5 of 22 Authorities are not justified in failing to read the said statement wholly and fully

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1658/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

concluded the assessment under section 148 of the Act based on the material information impounded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act and also search conducted against Mr. D. S. Nandish under section 132(4) of the Act. There is direct proximity to the survey ... substantiated. 13. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and Order of the authorities below, we noted that survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Xentrix Studios Pvt. Ltd., on 03.05.2017. During the survey, it was found that Shri

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1657/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

No.1656/Bang/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis for appeals in ITA Nos.1657, 1658/Bang/2024. 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. D. S. Nandish ... concluded the assessment under section 148 of the Act based on the material information impounded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act and also search conducted against Mr. D. S. Nandish under section 132(4) of the Act. There is direct proximity to the survey

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1656/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

concluded the assessment under section 148 of the Act based on the material information impounded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act and also search conducted against Mr. D. S. Nandish under section 132(4) of the Act. There is direct proximity to the survey ... also not substantiated. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and Order of the authorities below, we noted that survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Xentrix Studios Pvt. Ltd., on 03.05.2017. During the survey, it was found that

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Rakesh Goel, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1204/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

proceeding under this Act", as already extracted above, makes it clear that the materials collected and the statement recorded during the survey under section 133A are not conclusive piece of evidence by itself. For all these reasons, particularly, when the Commissioner and the Tribunal followed the circular of the Central

Subhash Pareta, Kota Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Kota, Kota Rajashtan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 114/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarsubhash Pareta, 3/148, Basant Vihar, Dada Bari, Ganesh Talab, Kota - 324009 Pan No. Aggpp4046H ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr.P.C. PARWAL, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. ANITA RINESH, Addl. CIT, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142Section 250Section 40ASection 69Section 69C

thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed - (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. S A Builders and Developers, Hyderabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 296/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.258 & 259/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. S.A. Builders & Developers, Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Acufs3331A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. M/S. S.A. Builders & Central Circle 2(1) Developers, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acufs3331A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Two Sets Of Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Both Dated 29/04/2022, Arising From The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Ys 2016-17 & Page 1 Of 56

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

separate and distinct entity. 5. The learned CIT(A) does not deny that the premises of the appellant- firm was actually covered under survey under section 133A on the face of evidences produced by the appellant. 6. The learned CIT (A) should have appreciated that a survey under section 133A ... separate and distinct entity. 5. The learned CIT(A) does not deny that the premises of the appellant- firm was actually covered under survey under section 133A on the face of evidences produced by the appellant. Page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. S A Builders and Developers, Hyderabad

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 295/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

separate and distinct entity. 5. The learned CIT(A) does not deny that the premises of the appellant- firm was actually covered under survey under section 133A on the face of evidences produced by the appellant. 6. The learned CIT (A) should have appreciated that a survey under section 133A ... separate and distinct entity. 5. The learned CIT(A) does not deny that the premises of the appellant- firm was actually covered under survey under section 133A on the face of evidences produced by the appellant. Page

S A Builders & Developers, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 259/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

separate and distinct entity. 5. The learned CIT(A) does not deny that the premises of the appellant- firm was actually covered under survey under section 133A on the face of evidences produced by the appellant. 6. The learned CIT (A) should have appreciated that a survey under section 133A ... separate and distinct entity. 5. The learned CIT(A) does not deny that the premises of the appellant- firm was actually covered under survey under section 133A on the face of evidences produced by the appellant. Page

S A Builders & Developers, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 258/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.258 & 259/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. S.A. Builders & Developers, Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Acufs3331A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. M/S. S.A. Builders & Central Circle 2(1) Developers, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acufs3331A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Two Sets Of Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Both Dated 29/04/2022, Arising From The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Ys 2016-17 & Page 1 Of 56

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

separate and distinct entity. 5. The learned CIT(A) does not deny that the premises of the appellant- firm was actually covered under survey under section 133A on the face of evidences produced by the appellant. 6. The learned CIT (A) should have appreciated that a survey under section 133A ... separate and distinct entity. 5. The learned CIT(A) does not deny that the premises of the appellant- firm was actually covered under survey under section 133A on the face of evidences produced by the appellant. Page

Ekta Sanitary Store, Focal Point Patiala vs. ACIT, Circle, Patiala, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal and Shri Vipin Sethi, AdovactesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69

above ground or grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 31.05.2016. During the survey proceedings, the assessee had offered a surrender of Rs.50