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. K. Shekar Raju, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 813/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Shri K. Shekar Raju, The Deputy #169, 3Rd Cross, Cex Layout, Commissioner Of Rmv 2Nd Stage, Vs. Income Tax, Bhoopasandra, Central Circle – 2 [2], Bangalore – 560 004. Bangalore. Pan: Afsps7129H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri K.R. Narayana, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)-Vi, Bangalore Dated 28.02.2014 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under. “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Passed U/S.143[3] Rws 153C Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Void-Ab-Initio In As Much As The Assessment Having Already Been Completed By The Very Learned A.O. For The Impugned Assessment Year Earlier On 15/12/2009 & Thus Cannot Re- Assess/Revise His Own Order Which Is Outside The Purview & Scheme Of The Act Envisaged & Thus The Impugned Assessment Requires To Be Held As Null & Void & Are Non-Est In Law. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above, The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143[3] 153C Of The I.T.Act Wherein The Impugned Additions Assessed By The A.O. Were Already Dealt & Deliberated In The Earlier Proceedings Completed On 15/12/2009 By The Very Learned A.O. & The A.O. Being Satisfied By The Explanations Tendered Then & That No Additions Were Made In Such Assessment & It Is Therefore Now Not Open To The Very A.O. To Revist/Revise/Negate His Own Findings Which Are Not Permissible As Per The Scheme Of The Act. Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, JCIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 234A