“ seized material ”

CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears

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.

362 ITR 673 · 2014 · Supreme Court

528

163 Taxmann.com 118 · 2024 · Supreme Court

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.

500

CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd.

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.

49 Taxmann.com 172 · 2014 · High Court

331

ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

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

394 ITR 569 · 2017 · High Court

282

322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court

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

262

155 Taxmann.com 155 · 2023 · Supreme Court

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

235

Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

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.

161 Taxmann.com 485 · 2024 · High Court

196

ITA 568/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

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

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Sankalp in, Ahmedabad

In the result Revenue's Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd\nShri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 69C

search, certain incriminating material in the form of handwritten diaries, loose papers, printed forms/bills etc. were found and seized. Perusal of such seized material revealed that the group was involved in charging huge on-money on sale of flats and commercial units as well as cash sales in restaurant ... hotel business. Such seized material further indicated that the group has incurred huge unaccounted cash payments in relation to the hotel and restaurant business. Various premises of the assessee group were covered during the search. Statements of various persons were also recorded during the course of search. 2. 1. During

The DCIT, Circle-4(1) (1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shah Foils Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1922/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1852/Ahd/2019 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1922/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 1. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. 1. The Ito, Ward-4(1)(3) बनाम/ 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 2. The Ito, 2. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. Ward-4(1)(3) 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaics 0490 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23.10.2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

third-party documents, which were not reliable evidence. 6.2. The AO rejected the assessee’s statements and relied on corroborative evidence such as seized materials, third-party statements, and judicial precedents to justify the addition under Section 69A of the Act. 7. The CIT(A) held that ... sales. The absence of a transaction in official records does not imply its non-existence, especially when corroborative evidence exists in the form of seized materials and third- party admissions. 17.4. The AO’s rejection of the assessee’s contention is supported by judicial precedents where unaccounted transactions are inferred

M/S. Shah Foils Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed and the

ITA 1852/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

third-party documents, which were not reliable evidence. 6. 2. The AO rejected the assessee's statements and relied on corroborative evidence such as seized materials, third-party statements, and judicial precedents to justify the addition under Section 69A of the Act. 7. The CIT(A) held that ... sales. The absence of a transaction in official records does not imply its non-existence, especially when corroborative evidence exists in the form of seized materials and third- party admissions. 17. 4. The AO's rejection of the assessee's contention is supported by judicial precedents where unaccounted transactions

Future Gaming and Hotel Services P Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 950/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - LdFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. CIT-DR a/w Ms. Anitha (Addl. CIT) – Ld.

Section 153ASection 271A

taken place, the assessee would not have admitted the said amount. There was undisclosed income which was found only after verification of the seized material as found during the course of search. The assessee agreed for addition and therefore, the assessee had concealed income by not offering the entire undisclosed

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Queens Road, Bengaluru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

ITA 1292/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

cancelled on the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. Ground regarding: Whether the addition made on the basis of the so called seized material / disputed diary is in accordance with law? i. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.262 ... taking note that the onus was on the department and the AO to demonstrate that the entries in the disputed diary or seized material have resulted in materialised transactions giving rise to income of the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. xiii. The learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

cancelled on the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. Ground regarding: Whether the addition made on the basis of the so- called seized material / disputed diary is in accordance with law? i. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.262 ... taking note that the onus was on the department and the AO to demonstrate that the entries in the disputed diary or seized material have resulted in materialised transactions giving rise to income of the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. xiii. The learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Queens Road, Bengaluru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1290/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

cancelled on the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. Ground regarding: Whether the addition made on the basis of the so- called seized material / disputed diary is in accordance with law? i. ii. tii. iv. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent ... taking note that the onus was on the department and the AO to demonstrate that the entries in the disputed diary or seized material have resulted in materialised transactions giving rise to income of the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1024/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

cancelled on the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. Ground regarding: Whether the addition made on the basis of the so- called seized material / disputed diary is in accordance with law? i. ii. tii. iv. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent ... taking note that the onus was on the department and the AO to demonstrate that the entries in the disputed diary or seized material have resulted in materialised transactions giving rise to income of the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1023/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

cancelled on the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. Ground regarding: Whether the addition made on the basis of the so- called seized material / disputed diary is in accordance with law? i. ii. tii. iv. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent ... taking note that the onus was on the department and the AO to demonstrate that the entries in the disputed diary or seized material have resulted in materialised transactions giving rise to income of the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1022/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

cancelled on the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. Ground regarding: Whether the addition made on the basis of the so called seized material / disputed diary is in accordance with law? i. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.262 ... cancelled on the facts and circumstance of the case. 9. Ground Regarding whether the addition made on the basis of the so-called seized material is in accordance with law? i. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.135

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1021/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

cancelled on the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. Ground regarding: Whether the addition made on the basis of the so- called seized material / disputed diary is in accordance with law? i. ii. tii. iv. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent ... taking note that the onus was on the department and the AO to demonstrate that the entries in the disputed diary or seized material have resulted in materialised transactions giving rise to income of the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned

Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 205/BANG/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel

ITA 48/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

sufficient if it pertained to the other person. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee himself affirms that the seized material marked as A2/DJPL/4 dated 2.9.2010 do not belong to him. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the seized material A2/DJPL/4 ... material belonging to the assessee but pertaining to the assessee. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no seized material found during the course of the search and seizure proceedings in the case of M/s Davanam Group on the basis of which notice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

ITA 47/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

sufficient if it pertained to the other person. . The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee himself affirms that the seized material marked as A2/DJPL/4 dated 2.9.2010 do not belong to him. . The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the seized material A2/DJPL/4 has not been ... material belonging to the assessee but pertaining to the assessee. . The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no seized material found during the course of the search and seizure proceedings in the case of M/s Davanam Group on the basis of which notice u/s 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

ITA 46/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

ITA 45/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore vs. Mr. D K Shivakumar, Bangalore

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Respondent: Shri. Chandrasekhar, AR