Section 153C of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 153C is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 9,619 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 153C

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

Judgments on Section 153C

Sri Yogesh Kumar Sahu, Ranchi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 17/RAN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.17/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Yogesh Kumar Sahu..….............................................................……Appellant 101, Krishna Apartment, Ratu Road, Ranchi-834001. [Pan: Akxps7553F] Vs. Pcit(Central), Patna…........................……....................……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 25, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.05.2020 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax , Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. In This Case, A Search & Seizure Action U/S 132 Of The Act Was Carried Out At The Business Premises Of Sahu Group Of Cases Including The Assessee On 22.07.2015. Thereafter, The Assessment Order U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Was Passed By The Assessing Officer On 22.12.2017 Assessing The Total Income Of Rs.89,34,560/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pcit Invoked His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Observed That A

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

The JCIT(OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. A B Engineering, Vadodara

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITSSA 5/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील (Ss) सं./I.T(Ss).A. No. 5/Ahd/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) The Jcit(Osd) M/S. A B Engineering बनाम/ Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara 359-2/360-2, Gidc Vs. Industrial Estate, Makarpur, Vadodara, Gujarat 391110 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofa6709Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Parin S Shah, A.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 03/07/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 05/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.12.2013 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Iv, Ahmedabad Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.12.2011 Passed By The Acit, Central Range, Baroda Under Section 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2009-10. It(Ss)A No. 5/Ahd/2022 (Jcit(Osd) Vs. M/S. A B Engineering) A.Y.– 2009-10 - 2 - 2. At The Time Of Hearing Of The Instant Appeal, The Ld. Representative Appearing For The Revenue Submitted Before Us That He Does Not Want To Press This Appeal, Since A Duplicate Appeal Has Been Filed. Thus, The Appeal May Be Treated As Withdrawn. In That View Of The Matter, The Appeal Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. 3. In The Result, Revenue’S Appeal Is Dismissed As Withdrawn.

For Respondent: Shri Parin S Shah, A.R
Section 153C