“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

Muhammedali Suhara, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

submitted that the disclosure of additional income in response to notice u/s.153C of the Act is voluntary and is not based on the seized material, and therefore, the appellant is not in guilty of concealing any particulars of income, and therefore, the penalty was not exigible u/s.271

Muhammedali Suhara, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Muhammedali Suhara, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1007/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Sri.A. Kamaludeen Thangal, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 83/COCH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 A. Kamaludden Thangal .......... Appellant Zeenosil, Punnode, Vettiyara P.O. Navaikulam, Trivandrum [Pan: Abppt6728E] Vs. Dcit. Central Circle – 1, Trivandrum .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

income. Against the said return of income assessment was completed by DCIT, Central Circle-1, Trivandrum (hereinafter called "the AO") based on the seized material vide order dated 31.03.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 13,07,315/-. While doing ... lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to complete the assessment after furnishing copies of seized material in relation to the appellant herein and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 7. In the result, the appeal filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jaipur vs. Manoj Kala, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous

ITA 1172/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

153C. The two pre-requisites are that the AO dealing with the assessee on whom search was conducted or requisition made, being satisfied that seized material belongs or relates to other assessee shall hand over it to AO having jurisdiction of such assessee. Thereafter, the satisfaction of AO receiving ... seized material that the material handed over has a bearing for determination of total income of such other person for the relevant preceding years. On fulfillment of twin conditions the AO shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. 26. Special procedure is prescribed under Section 153A

Dr. Balakrishnan Rajasekar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2457/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2456 & 2457/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dr. Balakrishnan Rajasekar, The Deputy C-47, Ii Avenue, V. Commissioner Of Anna Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai– 600102. Non-Corporate Circle 7(1) Chennai. [Pan:Adepr 5339Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153(2)

passed by the AO without the participation of the assessee by adding the entire amount of professional fees as per the seized material found in search proceedings of the Apollo Main Hospitals, Chennai. However the order has been passed by the AO shown as passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s

Dr. Balakrishnan Rajasekar, C vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2456/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153(2)

JCIT (OSD), Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3538/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3537/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) The Wine Connection Vs The Assistant Commissioner Shop No. 22 & 23, Dlf Cyber Of Income Tax, Hub, Gurugram, Haryana- Central Circle-14, 122001 New Delhi Pan: Aaift6798A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Yudhister Mehtani, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

case, a single approval u/s 153D has been accorded in respect of four Assessment Years pertaining to the Assessee, there is no mentioning of seized material in the other material to show involvement of the superior authority in the approval granted by the ACIT. Applying the ratio of judgments delivered

Liquidhub Analytics Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd), Pune vs. NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1952/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt Nilu Jaggi, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

Tower Private Limited. The petitioner grounds that the notices were issued on non-existent entity. In this regard, it is to submit that the seized material is for assessment years prior to merger of Amanora Future Towers Private Limited (PAN:AAKCA3074H) into City Corporation Limited (PAN:AACCC2820K) i.e. the seized

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1592/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1592/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sebco Property Private Limited Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Chennai-2. Vs. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 25-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: - 1. That The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai ["Ld. Pcit"] U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Barred By Limitation. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Thus The Ld. Pcit Erred In Initiating Revisionary Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

lands as per closing stock mentioned in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A. The Ld. AO also referred to seized material “STOCK 15-16.xlsx” containing details of development cost incurred during FY 2015-16, sales made in that year and closing stock ... this sheet was also confronted to the assessee. A specific observation was made that the closing stock arrived on the basis of above seized material was Rs.36.42 Crores whereas the assessee admitted stock of Rs.25.46 Crores in return of income filed u/s 153A. There was huge difference of Rs.10.95 Crores

Mayurply Industries Pvt Ltd., Hooghly, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Guwahati, Assam

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

Nos.1 to 7/GTY/2024 & 224/GTY/2024 Mayurply Industries Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 10-11, 12-13 to 17-18, 18-19 any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Surat vs. Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Surat

In the result, deletion of unsecured loan of Rs

ITA 391/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.391/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Vs. 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

declaring the same total income at Rs.6,62,990/-, as returned u/s 139 of the Act. The AO provided reasons for reopening, relevant seized materials and statement of Shri Darshana P. Sadhani to the assessee. After issuing various statutory and show cause notices, AO added Rs.2

Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Surat vs. Assistant Registrar, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, deletion of unsecured loan of Rs

ITA 312/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

Smt. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

22. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Learned CIT(A) and the impugned orders u/s 154 of the Act passed by the ACIT deserve to be set aside

ITA 27/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 132(1)Section 136Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 245Section 250

assessee cannot be allowed to take a plea that the amount of undisclosed income owned by the assessee is not fully backed by the seized material as it would amount to adopting a modus operandi to avoid tax liability. The same was reaffirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The case

Smt. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

22. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Learned CIT(A) and the impugned orders u/s 154 of the Act passed by the ACIT deserve to be set aside

ITA 26/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 132(1)Section 136Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 245Section 250

Smt. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

22. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Learned CIT(A) and the impugned orders u/s 154 of the Act passed by the ACIT deserve to be set aside

ITA 25/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 132(1)Section 136Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 245Section 250

Smt. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

22. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Learned CIT(A) and the impugned orders u/s 154 of the Act passed by the ACIT deserve to be set aside

ITA 24/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 132(1)Section 136Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 245Section 250

Smt. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

22. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Learned CIT(A) and the impugned orders u/s 154 of the Act passed by the ACIT deserve to be set aside

ITA 23/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 132(1)Section 136Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 245Section 250

Alok Kumar Jain, Pearl Pleasure vs. ACIT Cir-6, Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Rajasthan

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Jurisdiction of the Income- tax Authorities Scheme, 2022" and the "e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" were introduced. Notice u/s 148 if seized material was being relied upon is invalid 5. Shyam Sunder Khandelwal S/o Late 4. Learned counsel for petitioner 73-82 Damodar Lal Khandelwal, vs Assistant ... series of decision cited (supra) we hold that the assessment or reassessment of income of the person other than search persons based on seized material can be only be made u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and the provisions of section 147/148 of the Act are not applicable in such cases

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Periwal Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 364/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69B

action u/s153C of the Act, these conditions are to be prima facie satisfied. 5.3.2 In the present case, there is no mention of specific seized material, or any incriminating document found during the seajrchof person searched u/s 132 i.e. Kewal Krishan Chhabra group. Relevant part of the assessment order ... initiation of assessment proceeding u/s 153A/153C for a particular year is the existence of ITA 363 & 364/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18,2018-19 8 seized material in that year. In case there is no incriminating material, AO cannot assess or reassess the income. 5.3.6 To summarize, the basic test