← 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

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 996/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business of money lending based on the disputed seized materials / lack of seized materials in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred ... assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months whereas for remaining months, there was no seized material. The application of average rate of interest was arbitrary. The expenditure incurred in money-lending business was not considered at all. The assessee also

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 995/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business of money lending based on the disputed seized materials / lack of seized materials in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred ... assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months whereas for remaining months, there was no seized material. The application of average rate of interest was arbitrary. The expenditure incurred in money-lending business was not considered at all. The assessee also

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 994/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business of money lending based on the disputed seized materials / lack of seized materials in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred ... assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months whereas for remaining months, there was no seized material. The application of average rate of interest was arbitrary. The expenditure incurred in money-lending business was not considered at all. The assessee also

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 993/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business of money lending based on the disputed seized materials / lack of seized materials in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred ... assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months whereas for remaining months, there was no seized material. The application of average rate of interest was arbitrary. The expenditure incurred in money-lending business was not considered at all. The assessee also

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 992/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business of money lending based on the disputed seized materials / lack of seized materials in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred ... assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months whereas for remaining months, there was no seized material. The application of average rate of interest was arbitrary. The expenditure incurred in money-lending business was not considered at all. The assessee also

Kamal Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

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

ITA 1218/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekkamal Sharma, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle Ii, Village Bakoli, Faridabad. Delhi – 415 112. (Pan : Awsps7332M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Order : 14.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-3, Gurgaon (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 27.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That Search Was Conducted In The Case Of Sunstar Group On 19.12.2013. Based On The Material Found, Notice Under Section 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Issued On 20.01.2016. He Submitted That The 2 Deemed Search For The Purpose Of Section 153C Is Ay 2016-17. Assessing Officer Has Issued Notice U/S 153C To Ays Falling Within Six Assessment Years Immediately Preceding Assessment Year Relevant To The Previous Year In Which Search Was Conducted. He Submitted That Notices U/S 153C Was Issued On 20.01.2016 To The Assessee. It Shows That Satisfaction Was Recorded By The Assessing Officer Of The Assessee In The Ay 2016-17, Therefore, As Per The Provisions Of Section 153C, Six Years Prior To The Searched Assessment Year In This Case Is Ay 2016-17 Covers The Period I.E. Ays 2010-11 To 2015-16. Since The Assessment Proceedings Were Initiated For Impugned Ay 2009-10 Is Beyond Jurisdiction. He Submitted That The Issue Under Consideration Is Well Settled & In This Regard, He Relied On The Following Decisions :- (I) Itta Delhi In The Case Of M/S. Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cc-11, Faridabad – 2024 (7) Timi 129 Dated 21.06.2024; (Ii)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT DR
Section 153C

said circular clarifies as under :- “The AO of the other person assumes jurisdiction under Section 153C with the receipt of the relevant seized material from the AO of the searched person. Also, a copy of the satisfaction received from the AO of the searched person in this regard would enable ... under Section 153C and proceeding further, considering the above aspects. It is advisable for maintaining institutional memory that the AO records receipt of the seized material and the satisfaction from the AO of the searched person and such recording/noting may be kept in the assessment folder of such other person

Gajulapalli Shoban Babu, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce, Tirupati

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 298/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.296, 297 & 298/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Gajulapalli Shoban Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Babu Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Tirupati Pan:Agfpg4314G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

learned Assessing Officer made a part of addition in respect of unaccounted investments in film financing business, without mentioning page no. Of the seized material. The learned Addl. Commissioner also approved the same without making any enquiries. As the order is approved u/s 153D, routinely without application of mind, therefore ... account and also in cash. The loans given in cash is unaccounted. The assessee also claims to have explained the other part of the seized material and claimed that, he has received loans from associates/lenders, but all the associates have denied having given any loan to the assessee which

Gajulapalli Shoban Babu, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce, Tirupati

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 297/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.296, 297 & 298/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Gajulapalli Shoban Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Babu Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Tirupati Pan:Agfpg4314G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

learned Assessing Officer made a part of addition in respect of unaccounted investments in film financing business, without mentioning page no. Of the seized material. The learned Addl. Commissioner also approved the same without making any enquiries. As the order is approved u/s 153D, routinely without application of mind, therefore ... account and also in cash. The loans given in cash is unaccounted. The assessee also claims to have explained the other part of the seized material and claimed that, he has received loans from associates/lenders, but all the associates have denied having given any loan to the assessee which

Gajulapalli Shoban Babu, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Tirupati

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 296/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.296, 297 & 298/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Gajulapalli Shoban Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Babu Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Tirupati Pan:Agfpg4314G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

learned Assessing Officer made a part of addition in respect of unaccounted investments in film financing business, without mentioning page no. Of the seized material. The learned Addl. Commissioner also approved the same without making any enquiries. As the order is approved u/s 153D, routinely without application of mind, therefore ... account and also in cash. The loans given in cash is unaccounted. The assessee also claims to have explained the other part of the seized material and claimed that, he has received loans from associates/lenders, but all the associates have denied having given any loan to the assessee which