“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

Dinesh Jawaraji Parihar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5633/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

above mentioned grounds. 6. The Learned Authorised Representative (‘Ld. AR’ for short) for the assessee commenced her arguments stating that there was no seized material pertaining to the assessee and the Ld. AO merely relied on the material seized from the third party which did not establish any nexus with ... been claimed in the order of assessment that the assessee had paid on money, but again no such statement has been confronted, neither the seized material /documents /pendrive was confronted to the assessee nor the copy of statement of Key person was confronted. 13. Therefore, in our view, the information

Dinesh Jawaraji Parihar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5629/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

above mentioned grounds. 6. The Learned Authorised Representative (‘Ld. AR' for short) for the assessee commenced her arguments stating that there was no seized material pertaining to the assessee and the Ld. AO merely relied on the material seized from the third party which did not establish any nexus with

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura, Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

been expressed by in the case of Hotel Kiran v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune).” In the present case also there was seized material during course of search of CGST at the premises of the appellant and the statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel which has been stated

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura, Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Ashok Kumar Bagaria, Patna

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

ITA 35/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ita Nos. 34 & 35/Pat /2021 (Ay: 2011-12 & 12 -13) Acit, Central Circle-3 Vs Ashok Kumar Bagaria, Patna. 502 & 503, Shanti Vihar Apartment, Frazer Road, Patna. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adapb9497P Assessee By: Sh. A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, Cit (Dr). Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. And Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that Assessing Officer has passed assessment order considering the statement given by Sh. Sanjay Modi and seized material SKM-5 in which the name of the appellant is mentioned for few transactions and Assessing Officer finally concluded that the share capital introduction

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Ashok Kumar Bagaria, Patna

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

ITA 34/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. And Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

Kamalkumar Ramkumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1975/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

cheque. However, as per the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not produce any bank statements and did not furnish any evidence to rebut the seized material. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.56,60,500/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added the same ... addition under section 69 of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) held that the substantial difference between the actual value of the unit as per seized material and the registered consideration clearly established payment of on-money in cash. Applying the test of human probabilities and relying on judicial precedents

Sejal Paresh Chopra, Mumbai Maharahstra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

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

ITA 7062/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

above mentioned grounds. 6. The Learned Authorised Representative (‘Ld. AR’ for short) for the assessee commenced his arguments stating that there was no seized material pertaining to the assessee and the Ld. AO merely relied on the material seized from the third party which did not establish any nexus with ... been claimed in the order of assessment that the assessee had paid on money, but again no such statement has been confronted, neither the seized material /documents /pendrive was confronted to the assessee nor the copy of statement of Key person was confronted. 13. Therefore, in our view, the information

Sejal Paresh Chopra, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. Central Circle 4(2) ACIT Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Maharashtra

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

ITA 7061/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

Chenaram Habtaji Parihar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5632/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Chenaramhabtaji Parihar Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-4(2) Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, Air 203, 2Nd Floor, Tirangabldg, B Wing, Kamathipura, 2Nd Lane, India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400008

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

strictly comply with the principles of natural justice by confronting the assessee with the primary material and by establishing a clear nexus between the seized material and the assessee. In the present case, such essential exercise has not been carried out. The assessee has consistently denied having paid

Chenaram Habtaji Parihar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5631/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

Chenaram Habtaji Parihar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5630/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh K Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3032/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarincome Tax Officer-19(2)(2) Mahesh K Joshi 503, 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office, 42, A/3, 479 Jariwala Building, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Arther Road, Tardeo, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 034 Pan/Gir No. Aadhm 4623 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Annavram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of The Order Dated 24.02.205, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2011-12. 2. Though The Department Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Solitary Issue Arising In The Appeal Relates To Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.1,04,16,232/- Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short), Alleging Non-Genuine Transaction. When The Matter Was Called Out, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. A Perusal Of Record Reveals That On Earlier Occasions Also The Assessee Failed To Appear, Though, Several Notices Of Hearing Were Sent To The Assessee. Keeping In View The Nature Of Dispute & Other Attending Facts & Circumstances, We Deem It Appropriate To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex Parte Qua The Assessee With The Assistance Of Ld. Departmental Representative (‘Ld. Dr’ For Short) & Based On Facts & Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavram Kosuri

Section 132(4)Section 147

submissions made before ld. First appellate authority, the assessee had categorically stated he is not a beneficiary of accommodation entry, but as per the seized material and the statement recorded from Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt his name appears in the list of entry providers. In this context, ld. First appellate

Chandra Khilwani, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), Vadodara, Aayakar Bhavan, Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2234/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

been explained by the Assessing Officer while proceeding against the assessee. The statements of the persons recorded during search with reference to the alleged, seized material, was not provided to the assessee and hence, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act of 1961 stood vitiated. 4 Learned

Satyanarayana Reddy Cheruku, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

ITA 1358/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1358/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11) Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cheruku, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaupc0479M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, Dated 23/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 11/12/2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

order has held as under: “7. There is a search and seizure carried on in the case of M/s. Arihant Educational Society where seized material was found to the extent of Rs. 30.00 lakhs. A statement of the cashier was recorded u/sec. 132(4) and accordingly issued notices ... above the fee as prescribed by the Government. However, the Assessing Officer not accepted the explanation of the assessee and based on the seized material and statement of the cashier, addition of Rs. 30.00 lakhs was made as unexplained source in the hands of the assessee, the same is confirmed

Thippareddy Govindareddy Malli Reddy, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 685/BANG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 69A

being the same AO as also of the assessee, recorded satisfaction that the documents relate and pertain to the assessee. On examination of the seized material, he noted that these documents have a bearing on the total income of the assessee. 5. Consequent to that, notice u/s. 153C ... allegedly relating to cash loan of Rs 2 Cr. given by the assessee to one Mr. Vasudev were mentioned at page 1 of the seized material marked as ‘A/TGMRR/01. During the search, statement u/s. 132(4) was recorded of the assessee on 10th and 11th Sept. 2018 wherein

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Tanishq Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8105/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2024-2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

were for the reasons as explained herein above. Solemnly affirmed on 29 Jan 2024 January, 2024. (Rajesh Jagmohandas Gandhi) 15. Thereafter, based upon the seized materials and the statement of Shri Rajesh Gandhi, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 21.03.2025 proposing addition of Rs.22.17 crores towards alleged ... method consistently followed and accepted in earlier years. 27. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the assessment order and submitted that the seized materials are not stray notings but are detailed, transaction-specific and internally consistent. He argued that the statement recorded under section

Tanishq Builders, Mumbai vs. The ACIT CC 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5952/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Patna vs. Parth Ashram Edu Services Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 444/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 292C

appellant are without any TDS which was mandated as per the provisions of the Act. The emails were not the part of the seized materials but presented later at the time of assessment proceedings. If the emails were present with the director of the appellant company at the time