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

S. Kumaragurubaran, Perambalur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 778/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.774, 775, 776, 777 & 778/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri S. Kumaragurubaran, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 31, Z/5C, Akash Bhavan, Vs. Income Tax, Kuppusamy Nagar, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle 1, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu 621 212. Trichy. [Pan:Awmpk8844J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Marutha Pandiayan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Two Separate But Identical Orders Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2015-16 As Well As Common Order Dated 03.08.2022 For The Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. When These Appeals Were Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Could Not Appear Before

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Marutha Pandiayan, CIT
Section 144

S. Kumaragurubaran, Perambalur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 777/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.774, 775, 776, 777 & 778/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri S. Kumaragurubaran, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 31, Z/5C, Akash Bhavan, Vs. Income Tax, Kuppusamy Nagar, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle 1, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu 621 212. Trichy. [Pan:Awmpk8844J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Marutha Pandiayan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Two Separate But Identical Orders Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2015-16 As Well As Common Order Dated 03.08.2022 For The Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. When These Appeals Were Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Could Not Appear Before

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Marutha Pandiayan, CIT
Section 144

S. Kumaragurubaran, Perambalur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.774, 775, 776, 777 & 778/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri S. Kumaragurubaran, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 31, Z/5C, Akash Bhavan, Vs. Income Tax, Kuppusamy Nagar, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle 1, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu 621 212. Trichy. [Pan:Awmpk8844J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Marutha Pandiayan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Two Separate But Identical Orders Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2015-16 As Well As Common Order Dated 03.08.2022 For The Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. When These Appeals Were Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Could Not Appear Before

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Marutha Pandiayan, CIT
Section 144

S. Kumaragurubaran, Perambalur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 775/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.774, 775, 776, 777 & 778/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri S. Kumaragurubaran, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 31, Z/5C, Akash Bhavan, Vs. Income Tax, Kuppusamy Nagar, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle 1, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu 621 212. Trichy. [Pan:Awmpk8844J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Marutha Pandiayan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Two Separate But Identical Orders Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2015-16 As Well As Common Order Dated 03.08.2022 For The Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. When These Appeals Were Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Could Not Appear Before

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Marutha Pandiayan, CIT
Section 144

S. Kumaragurubaran, Perambalur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.774, 775, 776, 777 & 778/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri S. Kumaragurubaran, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 31, Z/5C, Akash Bhavan, Vs. Income Tax, Kuppusamy Nagar, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle 1, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu 621 212. Trichy. [Pan:Awmpk8844J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Marutha Pandiayan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Two Separate But Identical Orders Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2015-16 As Well As Common Order Dated 03.08.2022 For The Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. When These Appeals Were Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Could Not Appear Before

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Marutha Pandiayan, CIT
Section 144

Sanakan Purushothaman, Alappuzha vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1[2], Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 383/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.383/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sankaran Purushothaman, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Chingumtharayil, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Thirumalabhagom P.O., Investigation Building, Mahatma Gandhi Cherthala, Alappuzha 688 540, Salai, Nungambakkam, Kerala. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Adqpp2623R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Suresh Kumar Varma, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai Dated 22.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 19.04.2017 In The Case Of Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company Private Limited, Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Chit Fund. During The Course Of Search Operation, Certain Books Of Account Were 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Suresh Kumar Varma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 272