← All Phrases

“seized material”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A12,214 judgments

The decision most relied on for seized material is Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 399), cited in 2,379 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on seized material

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

No income can be quantified or disallowance made under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act unless it is justified on the basis of material seized during the course of the search.

CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears
362 ITR 673 · 2014 · Supreme Court
528
citing judgments

For initiating proceedings under Section 153C, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must record a satisfaction that seized material pertains to a third party, and the Assessing Officer of that third party must also record satisfaction that the material has a nexus to undisclosed income.

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
163 Taxmann.com 118 · 2024 · Supreme Court
500
citing judgments

Strict adherence to approval protocols under Section 153D, including those in the Departmental Manual of Office Procedure, is essential for search assessments. An assessment is invalid if the approving authority fails to apply its mind or consider all relevant seized material before granting approval.

CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd.
49 Taxmann.com 172 · 2014 · High Court
331
citing judgments

In assessments under Section 153A, additions for unabated assessment years are permissible only if based on seized or incriminating material discovered during the search.

ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
394 ITR 569 · 2017 · High Court
282
citing judgments

For initiating proceedings under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and specifically relate to the assessment years for which assessments are reopened. A document relevant only for one year cannot be used to reopen other assessment years without being incriminating for those years.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

CIT v. Jasjit Singh
155 Taxmann.com 155 · 2023 · Supreme Court
235
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C concerning a non-searched person, the relevant date for calculating the block of assessment years is the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of that person assumes possession of the seized material, not the date of the original search. This date determines the look-back period for reopening assessments under Section 153A read with 153C.

Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
161 Taxmann.com 485 · 2024 · High Court
196
citing judgments

Recording satisfaction under Section 153C for initiating proceedings against a third person is not a mechanical exercise; it requires a finding that seized material has a direct bearing on the third person's income, and improper satisfaction vitiates the assessment. Abatement under the second proviso to Section 153A is an inevitable consequence of a search, irrespective of the Assessing Officer's opinion on the material's impact.

Judgments citing seized material

Abhimanyu Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals captioned above are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 4722/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 69CSection 89C

erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO has merely relied upon 'Annexure A-8' of the seized material without explaining the basis of arriving at the said addition. 2.3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring ... Rs.80,000/- paid in cash was treated as unexplained expenditure and taxed accordingly under section 69C r.w.s. 115BB of the Act. Further, the seized material revealed that the assessee had done certain unaccounted sales as detailed in para 5.1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) provided many opportunities

Abhimanyu Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals captioned above are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 4721/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 69CSection 89C

erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO has merely relied upon 'Annexure A-8' of the seized material without explaining the basis of arriving at the said addition. 2.3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring ... Rs.80,000/- paid in cash was treated as unexplained expenditure and taxed accordingly under section 69C r.w.s. 115BB of the Act. Further, the seized material revealed that the assessee had done certain unaccounted sales as detailed in para 5.1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) provided many opportunities

Abhimanyu Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals captioned above are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 4720/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 69CSection 89C

erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO has merely relied upon 'Annexure A-8' of the seized material without explaining the basis of arriving at the said addition. 2.3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring ... Rs.80,000/- paid in cash was treated as unexplained expenditure and taxed accordingly under section 69C r.w.s. 115BB of the Act. Further, the seized material revealed that the assessee had done certain unaccounted sales as detailed in para 5.1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) provided many opportunities

Jai Shankar Maheshwari, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Shri Jai Shankar Vs Dcit, Maheshwari, B-14, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle-31, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092. New Delhi Pan-Aaupm3199E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10146/2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Fact Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Having Income From Salary & Interest Income & Filed His Return Of Income On 10.01.2022, Declaring Income Of Inr 5,46,580/-. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny By Way Of Issue Of Notice On 30.06.2022 & After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee & Also Placing Reliance On The Material Found During The Course Of Search Carried Out On M/S. Jainco Ltd. On 06.01.2021, An Addition Of Inr 62,00,000/- Is Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee By Holding That The Same As Undisclosed Sales Consideration Received In Addition To The Agreed Consideration Received On The Sale Of 50% Of Shares In The Property At G-174, 2Nd Floor, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092. 3. Against This Order, An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Before Ld.Cit(A) Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Assessment Order On Merits Of The Additions Which Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) In Terms Of Impugned Order Dated 31.01.2024. 4. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Tribunal Wherein Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Taken:-

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 54

Deed at INR 62 Lakhs. The AO of the persons searched i.e. Shri Praveen K. Jain has recorded his satisfaction and handed over the seized material to the AO of the assessee on 28.06.2022 and upon receiving the intimation and the material, the AO of the assessee i.e. ITO, Ward

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

with the additional ground raised by the appellant with respect to mechanical approval (without any application of mind and without due consideration of relevant seized material) u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the approving authority 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts ... perusal of the approval, it could be seen that Joint CIT while granting the approval has not observed that he has gone through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order and only

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

with the additional ground raised by the appellant with respect to mechanical approval (without any application of mind and without due consideration of relevant seized material) u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the approving authority 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts ... perusal of the approval, it could be seen that Joint CIT while granting the approval has not observed that he has gone through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order and only

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

with the additional ground raised by the appellant with respect to mechanical approval (without any application of mind and without due consideration of relevant seized material) u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the approving authority 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts ... perusal of the approval, it could be seen that Joint CIT while granting the approval has not observed that he has gone through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order and only

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujrat vs. ACIT, CC-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

with the additional ground raised by the appellant with respect to mechanical approval (without any application of mind and without due consideration of relevant seized material) u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the approving authority 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts ... perusal of the approval, it could be seen that Joint CIT while granting the approval has not observed that he has gone through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order and only

Gurukrupa Krafts Private Limited, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1727/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

with the additional ground raised by the appellant with respect to mechanical approval (without any application of mind and without due consideration of relevant seized material) u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the approving authority 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts ... perusal of the approval, it could be seen that Joint CIT while granting the approval has not observed that he has gone through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order and only

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. K S Palanisamy, Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.660/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of K.S. Palanisamy, Income Tax, Vs. Kuppagounden Valasu, Central Circle - 2(4), Avalpoondurai, Erode 638 115. Chennai. [Pan: Ajipp-8193-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Dated 31.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made On Account Of Alleged Receipts From M/S. Srs Mining.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 34

Mining) and others on 08.12.2016, certain documents with entries allegedly pertaining to the assessee were seized and sworn statements were recorded. Copies of the seized materials, extracts of satisfaction notes and sworn statement were provided to the assessee along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated ... Chennai on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to produce corroborative evidences to link the assessee to the entries, without appreciating that the seized material contained the entries referred to assessee which was further corroborated by sworn statement of Shri Srinivasulu, close associate of Shri Sekar Reddy

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 257/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the farm maintenance expenses are concerned. 7. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 69 based on the seized material recovered at the time of search in respect of the A/Y 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the said addition

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 256/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the farm maintenance expenses are concerned. 7. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 69 based on the seized material recovered at the time of search in respect of the A/Y 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the said addition

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 255/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the farm maintenance expenses are concerned. 7. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 69 based on the seized material recovered at the time of search in respect of the A/Y 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the said addition

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 254/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the farm maintenance expenses are concerned. 7. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 69 based on the seized material recovered at the time of search in respect of the A/Y 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the said addition

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 253/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the farm maintenance expenses are concerned. 7. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 69 based on the seized material recovered at the time of search in respect of the A/Y 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the said addition

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 252/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the farm maintenance expenses are concerned. 7. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 69 based on the seized material recovered at the time of search in respect of the A/Y 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the said addition

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 251/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the farm maintenance expenses are concerned. 7. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 69 based on the seized material recovered at the time of search in respect of the A/Y 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the said addition

Shri Shri Sandeep Meghani, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 226/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 225 & 226/Bil/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Sandeep Meghani, V Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Ramchandra Meghani & S Central Circle, Raipur (C. G) Sons, D-30, Shiv Shakti Villa, Sector-2, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Cg) Pan: Ajqpm2005E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69Section 69D

referred to supra, we find substance in the contention raised by the Ld. AR that in absence of relevant documents i.e., assessment records and seized material, the approval granted by the approval authority with a rider that the draft assessment orders are gone through within the limited time available, thus ... reading of the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act clearly indicates that the Approving Authority has neither examined the assessment records nor the seized materials. In fact, the letter of the Assessing Officer seeking approval also makes it clear that only draft assessment orders were sent for approval without

Shri Shri Sandeep Meghani, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 225/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 225 & 226/Bil/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Sandeep Meghani, V Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Ramchandra Meghani & S Central Circle, Raipur (C. G) Sons, D-30, Shiv Shakti Villa, Sector-2, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Cg) Pan: Ajqpm2005E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69Section 69D

referred to supra, we find substance in the contention raised by the Ld. AR that in absence of relevant documents i.e., assessment records and seized material, the approval granted by the approval authority with a rider that the draft assessment orders are gone through within the limited time available, thus ... reading of the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act clearly indicates that the Approving Authority has neither examined the assessment records nor the seized materials. In fact, the letter of the Assessing Officer seeking approval also makes it clear that only draft assessment orders were sent for approval without

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 345/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

however, failed to succeed. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal had deleted the addition, made based on the seized material in the form of excel sheets and other digital documents in absence of any corroborative evidence. Thus, it is submitted that in view of the findings of this ... make addition. Furthermore, the additions made by the AO were deleted by this Tribunal in ITA No. 508/Coch/2024 dated 20/12/2024 by holding that the seized material in the form of excel sheet and other digital documents without any corroborating material cannot form the basis for making addition. In the light