← All Phrases

“block assessment”

Search & SeizureSection 158BCSection 158BC4,282 judgments

The decision most relied on for block assessment is CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612), cited in 689 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on block assessment

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
346 ITR 177 · 2012 · High Court
308
citing judgments

For a non-searched person under Section 153C, the relevant six assessment years are counted backward from the assessment year in which the search was conducted, as prescribed by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.
465 ITR 101 · 2024 · High Court
277
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, the commencement point for calculating the six or ten assessment year block period is the date of issuing the Section 153C notice, or the date of the satisfaction note/handing over of books, as clarified by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT
289 ITR 341 · 2007 · Supreme Court
237
citing judgments

A block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act requires a prior search conducted under Section 132 or a requisition of documents/assets under Section 132A. This fundamental condition precedent applies to block assessments, including those concerning other persons under Section 158BD.

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.

Rishabchand Bhansali v. Dy. CIT
267 ITR 577 · 2004 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The previous approval required for assessment orders under provisions like Section 158BG or Section 153D is an administrative power and an internal matter, not deciding the assessee's rights. A mere irregularity in granting such administrative approval does not vitiate the assessment order.

P.R. Metrani v. CIT
287 ITR 209 · 2006 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Section 132 of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code governing search and seizure operations. The books of accounts, documents, valuables, or statements recorded during a search can be used as evidence in any subsequent proceedings under the Act, and the section outlines the conditions for issuing warrants of authorization.

CIT (Central) v. Kabul Chawla
2015 SCC OnLine DEL 11555 · 2015 · Reported
186
citing judgments

No addition can be made in respect of a completed assessment in the absence of incriminating material, especially when considering the object and purpose of Section 153-A.

Judgments citing block assessment

ITO, Ncw - 12 (2), Chennai vs. Rakesh Sarin and Sons (HUF), Chennai

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

ITA 3111/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3110 & 3111/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Rakesh Sarin & Sons (Huf), Non Corporate Ward 12(2), Vs. No. 15/4, Masilamani Road, Balaji Chennai. Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. [Pan:Aaahr3518N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate

admitted for adjudication. 3. The first common ground raised in both the appeals relates to deletion of interest on debtors. By virtue of block assessment order dated 28.02.2007, various investments, such as, investment in RBI Relief Bonds, investments in UTI, IDBI, HDFC relief bonds, Kisan Vikas Patra, RBI relief bonds ... orders of authorities below. In this case, the Assessing Officer estimated the interest at 24% on the outstanding sundry debtors. Actually, in view of block assessment order dated 28.02.2007, various investments were added as undisclosed income and since the assessee has not redeemed those investments, the Assessing Officer considered

ITO, Ncw - 12 (2), Chennai vs. Rakesh Sarin and Sons (HUF), Chennai

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

ITA 3110/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3110 & 3111/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Rakesh Sarin & Sons (Huf), Non Corporate Ward 12(2), Vs. No. 15/4, Masilamani Road, Balaji Chennai. Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. [Pan:Aaahr3518N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate

admitted for adjudication. 3. The first common ground raised in both the appeals relates to deletion of interest on debtors. By virtue of block assessment order dated 28.02.2007, various investments, such as, investment in RBI Relief Bonds, investments in UTI, IDBI, HDFC relief bonds, Kisan Vikas Patra, RBI relief bonds ... orders of authorities below. In this case, the Assessing Officer estimated the interest at 24% on the outstanding sundry debtors. Actually, in view of block assessment order dated 28.02.2007, various investments were added as undisclosed income and since the assessee has not redeemed those investments, the Assessing Officer considered

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1291/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

basis of retracted statements.” vi) Chitra Devi v/s ACIT (2002) 28 Tax-world 454 (ITAT JP) No addition can be made in block assessment on the basis of statement recorded during the search unless it is relatable and connected with the material found during the search. vii) Shri Pawan Lashkary

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1290/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

basis of retracted statements.” vi) Chitra Devi v/s ACIT (2002) 28 Tax-world 454 (ITAT JP) No addition can be made in block assessment on the basis of statement recorded during the search unless it is relatable and connected with the material found during the search. vii) Shri Pawan Lashkary