“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

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

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

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

Shri Balbir Singh Verma, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

borrowed capital, motor car expenses, loans and advances, unsecured loans, and additional income of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- declared post a survey under Section 133A conducted on 04.03.2015. 3.2 Regarding Interest Claimed under Section 24(b) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee claimed ... unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). 4 3.7 Ld. AO stated that a Survey under Section 133A conducted on 04.03.2015 led to an additional income declaration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. The AO noted this income might have remained undisclosed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12, Pune vs. Varun Jain, Pune

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

ITA 2720/PUN/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamorecross Objection No.14/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2720/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varun Jain, The Acit, P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, V Circle-12, Pune. Pune – 411014. S. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Acit, Varun Jain, Circle-12, Pune. Vs. P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Fenil Bhatt – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar - Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under C.O.No.14/Pun/2025 [A] & Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 [R]

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 250Section 253(4)

Equity Hybrid Fund Annual Dividend Option on 22.03.2018 and on the same date, Assessee received dividend of Rs.5,59,37,863/-. During the survey under section 133A of the Act, in the case of JM Financial Asset Management Limited, the Deputy Director of Income Tax(Investigation), noted that JM Financial

Midas Golden Distilleries P. Ltd, Sriperumbudur vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2955/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2955/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)

basis for any assessment. It was also contended on behalf of the assessee that any material collected or any statement recorded during the survey under Section 133A cannot be put against the assessee, as the same has no evidentiary value. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, appreciating ... answered the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, holding that the materials collected during the survey under Section 133A cannot be taken into consideration while determining the undisclosed income in respect of block assessment as per section 158BB, as the same

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 623/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

1DBR vs. M/s Brahmaputra Diagnostics & Hospital Ltd. Page 3 above, makes it clear that the materials collected and the statement recorded during the survey under section 133A are not conclusive by itself. The above cited judgment of the Hon'ble madras High Court was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 611/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Earth Reality, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 460/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Earth Reality Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Earth-49, Vs Vadodara. Opp: Misuza Court Vasna Road, Vadodara 390 007 Pan : Aadfe 0069 N (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

engaged in the business of real estate development, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015–16 on 30.03.2016 declaring Nil income. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee and its group concerns 2 on 10.01.2012. In the course of survey ... unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was voluntarily disclosed by the assessee during the survey under section 133A and advance tax of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid on 25.03.2015 towards the same. However, due to inadvertence and human error, the said

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Priyanka Communications (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1693/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Dcit-Cc-6(1) Priyanka Communications Room No. 445 (I) Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Vs. 143 Oshiwara Industrial Complex, Bandra East Centre, Opp. Oshiwara Mumbai-400 051. Bus Depot, New Link Road Goregaon West Maharashtra-400 104. Pan : Aabcm4898C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chetan M. KachaFor Respondent: Shri Murali Agrawal

Section 131Section 133ASection 16Section 69ASection 69B

only when there is excess cash and excess stock, whereas in appellant’s case, there is deficit cash and deficit stock found during survey under section 133A and hence the additions made cannot be sustained and Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions. 4. Heard both sides. Section

Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Allahabad vs. Deputy/ACIT(Central), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

year, i.e. on 9.07.2017. The amount of consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed was Rs. 1,15,00,000/-. However, during the survey under section 133A, it came to light that the actual consideration paid for the immovable property was Rs.3 Crores. This was admitted by the assessee during

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 461/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Gpg Cattle Feed Pvt. Ltd., Moga

In the result, the Revenue appeal is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of

ITA 210/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rupinder Kansal, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69

aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal. The facts in brief are that a survey under Section 133A had been conducted at the premises of the assessee on 25.04.2018. During the course of the survey, physical verification of stock was carried

Shree Jeen Tradelink Pvt., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Cir.-3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2633/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2633/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shree Jeen Tradelink Pvt. Limited,……..……Appellant 4Th Floor, 7/1A, Grant Lane, Bow Bazar, Kolkata-700012 [Pan:Aalcs6638J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……...Respondent Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Akhil Saxena, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

provided bogus commission, purchase, sale entries etc. all routed into his own companies in which he or his representatives/employees are Directors. During the survey under section 133A on 31.07.2013, these companies were not found existing on their addresses. The assessee is a Private Limited Company, which filed its return

Atlantis It Solution, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 303/MUM/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shi Prabhash Shankaratlantis It Solution Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 8, Engineer Building, Awabai Tax 6(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kasahinath Tardeo, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400 020 400 034 Pan : Aalca6845 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, SR DR

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35ASection 80G(5)

claimed a weighted deduction of Rs.52,50,000/- being 175% of Rs.30 lakhs. It was found that Investigation Wing, Kolkata conducted a survey under section 133A of the Act in case of several entities, wherein it was found that bogus donations were paid to certain trusts and societies. Therefore, while

Bhagwati Prasad Khandelwal, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1494/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Learned Ao & Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add, Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

grains, oilseeds, pulses in the name and style of M/s. Devkinandan Bhagwati Prasad, Bhamashah Mandi, Kota. In the case of the assessee, survey under section 133A was carried out on 08/03/2018. During the course of survey, a superfine note book was found and it was noticed that assessee had advanced

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road vs. Sureshkumar Periwal (PAN Aftpp6547D, Ahemdabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1116/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleit(Ss)A No. 153/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sureshkumar Periwal Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Prop. Of M/S. Shyam Bullion, Income-Tax, 113, First Floor, National Central Circle-1(2), Plaza, Opp. Lal Bungalows, Ahmedabad Cg Road, Ahmedabad [Pan : Aftpp 6547 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Sureshkumar Periwal Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Prop. Of M/S. Shyam Bullion, Income-Tax, 113, First Floor, National Central Circle-1(2), Plaza, Opp. Lal Bungalows, Ahmedabad Cg Road, Ahmedabad [Pan : Aftpp 6547 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR &For Respondent: Shri Biren Shah, AR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

addition of Rs.87,90,500/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the books of accounts. 4. Meanwhile, a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee as on 07.02.2020 and on the basis of information available

Chandalal Verma, Kota vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 617/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, &

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 292CSection 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

Chandalal Verma, Kota vs. Acitdcit, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 388/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, &

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 292CSection 69C

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

documentary evidence. The ld. PCIT has mentioned the gist of the submission of the assessee in her order as under:- That a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the premises of Hariram Hospital (Assessee), on 28.08.2018 The assessee filed its return of income declaring ... filed its return of income on 30.10.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 9,63,910/-. It is pertinent to note that a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 28.08.2018. Consequently, being a survey case the assessee’s return

Bharat Associates, Bundi vs. ACIT (OSD), Bundi

ITA 1293/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbharat Associates, Gayatri Nagar, Bundi, Bundi 323001. Pan No. Aamfb 3655N ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244ASection 250Section 292CSection 37(1)Section 40

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

capital adequacy computation, portfolio analytic as well as Model Risk Management to the clients in banking, insurance and other financial services globally. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 29.08.2019 in the case of Aptivaa India by DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai. Subsequently information was shared with

Om Processors Private Limited, K-3, Textiles Colony Ludhiana (East), Millerganj, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 758/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69B

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Amount disclosed at survey) - Assessment year 2019-20 - During course of survey under section 133A, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables, stating that same was to be taxed as business income - Assessing Officer, however, treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections