“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

Kesarwani & Co., Allahabad vs. Jt.CIT, Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 389/ALLD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

entire addition was unjustified because the veracity and correctness of the entries could not be established by the ld. AO / ld. CIT(A), through seized material and independent evidences and such printout was only a test run profit and loss account, containing imaginary figures not rebutted by the lower authorities

Sh. Pooran Mal Kanwat, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

18. As a result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A), and impugned assessments framed by Assessing Officer, are set aside

ITA 82/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 50CSection 69

that there exist any document found in the search and seizure operation conducted so as to prove that how the transaction recorded in the seized material with that of the transactions already recorded are in the nature of incriminating in nature. Merely the company has advanced the money which

Sh. Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1067/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

harping upon the narrations available in the diary, statement of Shri Ram Avtar Singla and Shri Brij Mohan Gupta. We have perused the seized material available on page 46 of the assessee's paper book. On this page, there are various entries against the names of various persons, they ... transaction was not confirmed. 2. Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)(UO)] – In this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition. The relevant portion

DCIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Dmg Finance Investment Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 3432/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Dmg Finance Investment Private Central Circle-15, Limited, New Delhi. Flat No.1, First Floor, Dakshineshwar, 10 Hailey Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd3459K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

transfer forms, original blank power of attorney to sell shares of share capital subscribers signed by the directors were found as part of the seized material. The ld. AO had issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the investors seeking certain details which, as per the assessment order ... case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the addition has made on the basis of seized material and seized material consists of incriminating documents in the form of original blank unexecuted share transfer forms bearing signature and seals of Investor companies

Tristar Hospitalities, Shivaji Marg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

ITA 2497/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year : 2019-20 Tristar Hospitalities Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of H. No.5/95, 27A & 27B Income Tax Industrial Area, Shivaji Marg, Central Circle – 16, Delhi – 110 015 Delhi Tan/ Pan : Aajft 5837 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri P. K. Mishra, C.A. & Shri Neeraj Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

appropriate to consider the Net Profit of the appellant @10% of the unaccounted receipts added to the total income by the AO considering the seized material. The AO has made additions of Rs. 24,29,400/- (Rs. 71,000/- + Rs.23,58,400/-) on account of unrecorded business receipts which

Krishan Kumar Goel, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 4310/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 292CSection 69C

length and perused the case record. The sole issue for our consideration here is that whether the additions made on the basis of seized material is justified. We do not find 7 Shri Krishan Kumar Goel any fault in the reasoning of the CIT(A) while upholding the said additions

DCIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi vs. Charles (India) Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1911/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2011-12 Dcit Vs. M/S. Charles (India) Pvt. Ltd Central Circle – 08, Room No.603, 27, Weston Street, New Delhi Kolkata – 700 012 Tan/ Pan : Aabcc 0116 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Amit Goel, C.A. & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153A

seized in course of search action on the appellant. The AO has specifically accepted in his remand reports that there is no specific seized material relating to transactions of the appellant leading to addition made in the assessment order. I do hold that by virtue of provisions of section 153A ... related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without 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." (emphasis supplied) ν. In absence

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

` आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Money Magnum Constructions, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 27, Mumbai

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

ITA 2445/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Money Magnum Constructions Pr. Cit, Circle-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 157 Samruddhi, 18Th Road, Near Ambedkar Garden, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Chembur (E), Mumbai-400 071 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. Pan/Gir No. Aacfn 9126 C (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Paresh Shaparia : Ms.Sanyogita Nagpal Respondent By : 09.09.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Mumbai-27 (‘Ld. Pcit For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Relevant To Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: I. “Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit 27 Erred In Treating The Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 24 March 2022 (Re-Assessment Order) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Thereby Setting Aside The Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit 27 Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Original Assessment Order As Well As Re- Assessment Order Have Duly Considered The Transaction Of Nsel Commodity Loss Of Rs

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: 09.09.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

business income. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee has sought for the details of the investigation wing data, the statement recorded, the seized material and details of client code modification, etc. along with other details during the assessment proceeding and the ld. AO has also furnished the same

Technodot Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

upon receiving the appraisal report within 60 days of a search operation, the Assessing Officer must become familiar with both the report and the seized material. Once the material is received, the AO, along with the Range Head, should scrutinize the material to determine if notices under sections 153A, 153C ... Note”, detailing these findings and the need for further action such as audits or investigations, must be prepared within 90 days of receiving the seized material. This note should also consider proposals for special audits and centralization of cases, as well as investigate third-party connections and opening of seized

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Auranagbad., Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

given were completely misapplied/misplaced as the reliance placed does not represent the settled position of law. Entrusting culmination of assessment in the light of seized material, the Ld. DR firmly pleaded that the quantum additions u/s 69C of the Act were on the basis of seized materials and only upon

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Private Limited, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Amol Pramod Mahajan, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1098/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

approval. 03. The same has been submitted as per our discussion and verification made on 10.08.2021, 15.09.2021, 22.09.2021 & time to time and as per seized materials, documents available on records and suggestion given in the appraisal report. Sr. No. A.Y. Return filed u/s Return filed Assessed 139 u/s 153A income ... procedures and to conduct the proceedings as per law, it establishes that no discussion whatsoever made by the JCIT in the approval regarding the seized material as the case may be relating to 49 assessments in respect of number of evidences, documents, statements of various persons etc., therefore, we find

Amol Pramod Mahajan, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1097/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Amol Pramod Mahajan, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1096/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A