“ survey under section 133A ”

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

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.

300 ITR 157 · 2008 · High Court

452

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

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.

263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court

266

CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

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.

335 ITR 259 · 2011 · High Court

149

CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works

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.

328 ITR 384 · 2010 · High Court

113

Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (

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.

373 ITR 9 · 2015 · High Court

328 ITR 400 · 2010 · High Court

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

63 Taxmann.com 199 · 2015 · ITAT

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

ITA 338/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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 Jalandhar, Jalandhar vs. Ankur Marwaha, Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

ITA 337/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act, made it clear that the materials collected and the statement recorded during the survey under Section 133A were not conclusive piece of evidence by itself. Following the circular F.No.286/2/2003 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. Ankur Marwaha, Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

ITA 266/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. Ankur Marwaha, Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

ITA 265/ASR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. Ankur Marwaha, Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

ITA 251/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. Rajni Marwaha, Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

ITA 250/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. Rajni Marwaha, Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

ITA 249/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. Rajni Marwaha, Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

ITA 196/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. Rajni Marwaha, Jalandhar

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

ITA 1445/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

M/S. Jewel India Jewellers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the primary contention of the assessee is that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The income declared in the course of the survey had already been disclosed in the original return filed under Section 139(1). Therefore, there was no case of concealment warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee, who is a key person connected with M/s. Jewel India Jewellers, a concern engaged ... have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that in the present case, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee. Soon thereafter, the assessee voluntarily disclosed the true income

Mr.Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Sivagangai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Karaikudi

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

ITA 1955/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 13-3/12-H, Bungalow Oorani Street, Income Tax, Puduvayal, Karaikudi Taluk, Circle 1, Sivagangai 630 108. Karaikudi. [Pan:Aajpw6483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 44ASection 69Section 69A

Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of ₹.3,24,37,580/- during the period of demonetization. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 02.03.2017 in assessee’s business premises in order to verify the source for cash deposits. During ... book filed consisting of 83 pages. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer, in order to verify the source for cash deposits during demonetization period, conducted survey under section 133A of 6 I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/25 the Act on the assessee, wherein, we note that the assessee clearly stated the source for such cash deposits

M/S. Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

evasion petition which was received by the assessing officer from investigation directorate and based on the same, the assessing officer conducted a survey under section 133A of The Income Tax Act on 11/2/2019. Subsequently because of survey, the assessee has made a voluntary disclosure of taxable income for assessment year

M/S. 9Th Street Architects, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1463/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 154Section 250Section 69A

admitted and contrary to the facts of the case as well as law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) was conducted in the case of the assessee during which it was admitted by the appellant ... assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee-firm, during which

DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2590/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal-700006 West Bengal-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancm1997Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Ms. Nandini Surekh, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Praveen Kishore, DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 68

Group of Cases. A search was conducted under Section 132(1) of the Act and Maxcab Industries P. Ltd; A.Y. 2021-22 a survey under Section 133A of the Act as well were conducted on the Goel Group of Cases on 15-03-2022 during which certain incriminating documents were ... doubt on the genuineness of the transactions 5.2 There was search and seizure operations under section 132(1) of the Act aswell as survey under section 133A of the Act, 1961 on 15.03.2022 and subsequent dates, at the office premises of "Goel Group of cases' at "Unit No. 12/4, Rajdanga

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

ITA 672/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- (1) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

ITA 61/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

ITA 59/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur, Jodhpur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

ITA 57/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT