← 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

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Damayanti Ramachandran, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore

ITA 149/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.19/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.149/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.20/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.A

Section 45(4)

Id.AR prayed to quash the reassessment order passed by the AO as void ab initio. 11.0 Per contra the Id.DR submitted that a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was conducted by the Income Tax Department and subsequently the Assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing the Notice

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Damayanti Ramachandran, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 103/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 45(4)

ld.AR prayed to quash the reassessment order passed by the AO as void ab initio. 11.0 Per contra the ld.DR submitted that a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was conducted by the Income Tax Department and subsequently the Assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing the Notice

Mukesh Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Reopening The Assessment & Without Independent Application Of Mind. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & The Consequent Reassessment Order So Passed Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

shifting of profits due to CCM - It was noted that there was no information provided in reasons as to in whose hands, a survey under section 133A was conducted by Investigation wing Reason only spoke that some survey conducted revealed that some broker was involved in misusing CCM facility

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

derives income from salary, house property and income from other sources. 3.1 In the case of M/s Dhoot Sangmermer Pvt. Ltd, a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and during the course of survey, certain papers were found at the business premises ... CBDT are binding in law on the authority under the Income Tax law on the question arising for consideration. The absence of a survey under Section 133A fundamentally nullifies the foundation for invoking the scrutiny guidelines, which explicitly necessitate the presence of actionable evidence or material unearthed during a survey

Sundeep Kapila, Himachal Pradesh vs. Additional Commissioner Central, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1069/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Rohatgi, CA and Shri Rajat Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)(c)

levied on account of violation of Section 269SS. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 14.12.2019. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147 were initiated, culminating in an assessment order dated

Sundeep Kapila, Himachal Pradesh vs. Additional Commissioner Central, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1068/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Rohatgi, CA and Shri Rajat Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)(c)

levied on account of violation of Section 269SS. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 14.12.2019. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147 were initiated, culminating in an assessment order dated

Sundeep Kapila, Himachal Pradesh vs. Additional Commissioner Central, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Rohatgi, CA and Shri Rajat Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)(c)

levied on account of violation of Section 269SS. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 14.12.2019. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147 were initiated, culminating in an assessment order dated

The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Kangad, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

ITA 321/RJT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

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-- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other

Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Kangad, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

ITA 320/RJT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 153A

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 presumea-- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur. vs. M/S. Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery Private Limited, Lucknow

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

been preferred by the assessee. ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 28 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) was carried out on 17.01.2019 at the premises of the assessee-company, wherein

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

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." In CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384/[2011] 196 Taxman 488 (Delhi), the Delhi

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 declaring income of Rs.47,30,110/- dated and filed on 27.09.2010. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 06.02.2013 during which a sworn in statement of the assessee was recorded on 07.02.2013 dated ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right -in law in holding that the statement made during survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 declaring income of Rs.47,30,110/- dated and filed on 27.09.2010. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 06.02.2013 during which a sworn in statement of the assessee was recorded on 07.02.2013 dated ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right -in law in holding that the statement made during survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Parth Ajit Pawar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3929/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

07/10/2021 in the case of the DB Realty Group, the Dynamics Group, and other related entities. Consequent to the said search, a survey under Section 133A was carried out in the case of Daund Sugar Pvt. Ltd., located at Alegaon, District Pune. 4. It was gathered that Shri Sagar Omprakash

Shailesh Goyal, Tonk vs. ACIT, Centre Circle Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 496/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

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

Rajvi Jewellers, Panchmahal vs. The Dy.CIT, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 232/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 69B

assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.12.2019, determining the assessed income at %3,20,34,149/-. During a survey under section 133A of the Act conducted on 09.09.2016, the assessee had admitted to an undisclosed income of 2%3,20,34,149/- on account

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Dailmer Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 276/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Dailmer Industries Private Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Limited 4Th Floor, Room No. 403, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, Vs. Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700006, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd0836D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nirav Sheth, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 68

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S Mrk Gold LLP, Bangalore

ITA 1026/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar J Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, on 29.03.2021. The case was selected for scrutiny under compulsory scrutiny as survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the assessee and subsequently other statutory ntoices ... were issued to the assessee. During the course of survey under section 133A of the Act on 20.01.202, discrepancy was found in the physical stock available with the assessee and stock recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. The differences are as under: 3. Statements were also recorded

L.M. Fabrication, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh vs. DCIT (Central Circle ), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 366/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 L.M Fabrication, Dcit, बनाम Village Nalka, Central Circle, Opp Raj Industry Shimla Vs. Vilalge Nalka Bagbania Po Manpura, Tehsil Baddi Solan H.P. 174101 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaefl3340C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Apepals)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 69C

Balance Sheet for the year under consideration was enclosed. The returned income for the year under consideration was Rs. 916810/-. An Income tax survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on the premises of the Assessee on 22.02.2019 alongwith M/s Akash Hospital & Diagnostic Centre, Nalagarh. The case

Anup Kumar HUF, Patna vs. ACIT, Cent. Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 192/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 246Section 251Section 5

inclined to condone the delay of 45 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. The facts in brief are that a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out at the business premises of M/s. Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Ltd., Patna. The group consisted