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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rangoli Buildtech (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5015/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs Rangoli Buildtech (P) Ltd., Central Circle-14, 1105, Akash Deep Building, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccr8695P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sunit Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th March, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-33 New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Purchasing & Selling & Developing Of Real Estate. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing Of The Department On 22.03.2011 In The Amtek Group Of Cases. The Premises Of M/S Excel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Was Also Covered U/S 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Which Is A Group Company Of Amtek Group. The Documents Belonging To The Assessee, M/S Rangoli Buildtech Pvt Ltd, 1105, Akash Deep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 110001 Were Also Found & Seized From The Premises Of M/S Excel Infotech Pvt Ltd & Others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi In Whose Name Search Warrant Of Authorization Was Issued. The Assessee'S Case Was Proposed For Centralization By The Investigation Wing For Coordinated Investigation & Assessment U/S 153C & Subsequently It Was Centralized With Central Circle- 14, New Delhi Vide Order F.No Cit(C) Centr/2012- 13/239 Dated 25.04.2012. Accordingly Notice U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 08.11.2012. In Response To The Said Notice, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.02.2013 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.6,89,710/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sunit Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153C