“seized material”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A12,214 judgments

The decision most relied on for seized material is CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears (362 ITR 673), cited in 528 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on seized material

CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears

362 ITR 673 · 2014 · Supreme Court

528

citing judgments

The recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite for assessments under Section 153C, and the six-year limitation period for such assessments is reckoned from the date this satisfaction is recorded.

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.

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.

Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal

82 ITD 85 · 2002 · ITAT

237

citing judgments

Evidence corroborating entries of payments or loan/interest advancements found in seized material from a third party must specifically show the actual transfer of money from the third party to the recipient to be admissible.

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.

PCIT v. Anuj Bansal

165 Taxmann.com 2 · 2024 · High Court

181

citing judgments

An approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is considered mechanical and invalid if granted without application of mind and without perusing relevant assessment records, including seized material. This principle has been affirmed by multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Judgments citing seized material

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Mohali

ITA 454/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

which was declared in the original return of income. 8.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. made copies of seized material available to the assessee who produced the books of account alongwith supporting vouchers which were test checked by the A.O. The assessee was maintaining personal books ... from time to time and files necessary information/replies/ documents etc, with whom the case was also discussed. During assessment proceedings, the copies of the seized material pertaining to the assessee were made available. Books of account along with supporting vouchers were produced and test checked. 2. The assessee

Green Park Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 32, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 290/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2006-07

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

reference: “7.3 In our considered view, each and every assessee is a separate and distinct assessee. It is a fact on record that no seized material belonging to the assessee was found during the course of search on BPTP Ltd. and some of its group companies. None of the vendors ... assessee. Even the ld. CIT(A) at para 4.3 has categorically stated that the assessment order nowhere mentions that any part of the seized material belong to the appellant company. The assessee has been denying to have paid any interest on PDCs. No cogent material was found during the course

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Syed Rafiuddin, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 491/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri YVST Sai (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)

upto 1.6.2015 when the Finance Act, 2015 inserted sub-clauses (a) & (b) to sub-section (1) of section 153C also including cases of the seized material “belongs to” or “pertains to” a person other than the searched assessee. Section 153C(2) also makes it clear that section 153A comes into ... foregoing statutory provisions that the Assessing Officer’s foregoing alleged section 153C satisfaction only incorporated the expression; whilst dealing with the alleged seized material, it only “relates to”” than “belongs to” as on the date of search and therefore also, section 153C satisfaction are found not same is not sustainable

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore vs. Sri L Manju, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by revenue in these appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri K. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk1430E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. L. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ahopm6734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harish V.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 40A(3)

order and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,36,61,000/- being additions made on unexplained Cash payments based on the evidence of seized material, without even adjudicating the issue in the appellate order? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,36,61,000/- being additions made on unexplained Cash payments based on the evidence of seized material, wherein, as per the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer has the right to consider the seized documents

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore vs. Sri K Manju, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by revenue in these appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri K. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk1430E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri L. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ahopm6734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harish V.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 40A(3)

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Rohan Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

assessment has not abated on the date of search, the AO has jurisdiction to make the addition only on the basis of seized material and not otherwise. We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the various decisions including the decision of jurisdictional High Court ... appearing in the books of account, over and above the interest already debited in the books of accounts. Thus, on the basis of these seized material, the AO made substantive addition in the case of Late Jitendra Mehta (Legal Heir, Rohan Mehta) of Rs.17,20,35,681/- and protective addition

Rohan Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Modtech Industries, New Delhi

In the result, since the assessment order is set aside on legal issue, therefore, there is no need to decide the additions on merits which are left with academic discussion only

ITA 8783/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 50B

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 I.T.As. No.8045, 8046, 8783/DEL/2019 24 on the basis of seized material." In absence

Modtech Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, since the assessment order is set aside on legal issue, therefore, there is no need to decide the additions on merits which are left with academic discussion only

ITA 8045/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 50B

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

kindly be noted that there were details of unaccounted receipts as well as unaccounted expenditure have been found in the seized material and hence the AO has to take into consideration the seize material in its totality and cannot apply the pick and choose theory which is totality un-justified ... relates to assessment year 2007 – 08. This also shows that the learned assessing officer is failed to apply his mind even to the seized material to determine the escaped income. 52. The learned assessing officer in paragraph number 3 after recording the table of various annexures categorically stated that

M/S Shree Jairam Education Society, Bhopal vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 90/IND/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37

notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was confronted with the seized material and after considering the submissions of the assessee assessment was completed on 29.12.2017, assessing the income at Rs. 286,69,615/- treating the assessee ... members in their individual capacity cannot be held against the Society for the purpose of cancellation of registration.” In the instant case, the seized material relied upon does not establish that activities of the assessee are not genuine and are not being carried out in accordance with the objects

M/S Shree Jairam Education Society, Bhopal vs. ACIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 548/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

appellant herein is ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 10 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur found to have advanced such loan. The seized material only refers to ‘PCK’ as having given advances. However on examination of entire material, he is unable to relate the material to the appellant ... Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur not fulfilled as no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing officer of the searched person and no seized material has been handed over to the Assessing officer of the assessee and hence, basis receipt of information/documentation and subsequent enquiries and investigation conducted during

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Cauvery Aqua Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue as well as both cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 68/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

expenses incurred is not material since the issue under consideration relates to the source of the cash payments made as per the seized materials. Hence, the addition made by the A.O. considering the said cash payments as undisclosed income of the appellant is deleted.” 9. On a perusal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Cauvery Aqua Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue as well as both cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 67/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 533/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

amount of concealed income correctly, rather the AO had made the additions on estimate basis for all the assessment years though there was no seized material indicating suppression of receipts for these assessment years and for a.y. 1995-96 the material found at the time of search had been analysed

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 501/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. Smt. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi. Pan Aanpi 5216K …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Yvst Sai. (D.R.) Respondent By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2009-10 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.28.02.2020 Passed In Case No.10397/2019-20 In Proceedings Under Section 154 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri YVST Sai. (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 154

when the Finance Act, 5 2015 inserted sub-clauses (a) & (b) to sub-section (1) of section 153C also including cases of the seized material “belongs to” or “pertains to” a person other than the searched assessee. Section 153C(2) also makes it clear that section 153A comes into play ... foregoing statutory provisions that the Assessing Officer’s foregoing alleged section 153C satisfaction only incorporated the expression; whilst dealing with the alleged seized material, it only “relates to”” than “belongs to” as on the date of search and therefore also, section 153C satisfaction are found not same is not sustainable

Shri Subodh Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 674/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

main grievance of the assessee is that the approving authority has granted approval without application of mind and without looking into the seized material. We are inclined to hold that if an approval has been granted by the approving authority in a mechanical manner without application of mind then ... other circumstances on the basis of which the officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authority have to approve the assessment order. The I.T.(SS)A. No.674/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2015-16 13 object of entrusting the duty

Sh. Rahul Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4503/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.4502 & 4503/Del/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Rahul Seth Vs. Acit 14, Chinar Drive, Central Circle – 25, Dlf Chhatarpur Farms New Delhi New Delhi – 110074 Pan : Aasps 9459 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

were pending as on the date of search, therefore the A.O. was precluded from making additions to returned income in the absence of any seized materials. In other words, it was submitted that the AO has no jurisdiction to make an assessment of income which is not based on material