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

DCIT CC-1(4), Kol, Kolkata vs. Ambica Industries, Andra Pradesh

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITSSA 75/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrirajesh Kumar & Shripradip Kumar Choubeyit(Ss)A Nos.74 & 75/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, Cc-1(4) Kolkata…………..…………………………………….Appellant Vs. Ambica Industries…………………………………….…………………...Respondent Plot No.162 Ida Mallapur Hyderabad, R.R Dist-500076 [Pan No.Aaffa5205Q] Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal,Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindra Singh, Citdr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :April27, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 15 , 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2017 & 05.02.2024 Of The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Passed Under Section 153Cr.W.S143(3) & 153Ar.W.S143(3) Of The Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2016-17 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). It Appears From The Report Of The Registry That Revenue Has Filed The Above Captioned Appeal After A Delay Of 75 Days, For This Revenue Has Filed A Petition To Condone The Delay.The Ld. Ar Did Not Raise Any Objection In Condoning The Delay. Going Over The Contents Of The Petition Filed By The Revenue, We Find That The Reason Mentioned For Delay Is Genuine & Bona Fide, Accordingly We Condoned The Delay. Since In Both The Appeal Issues Are Common, Hence Taken Up Together For Disposal By Taking The Ita No. 74/2024 As A Lead Case.

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153C

DCIT CC-1(4), Kol, Kolkata vs. Ambica Industries, Kolkata

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITSSA 74/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrirajesh Kumar & Shripradip Kumar Choubeyit(Ss)A Nos.74 & 75/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, Cc-1(4) Kolkata…………..…………………………………….Appellant Vs. Ambica Industries…………………………………….…………………...Respondent Plot No.162 Ida Mallapur Hyderabad, R.R Dist-500076 [Pan No.Aaffa5205Q] Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal,Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindra Singh, Citdr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :April27, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 15 , 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2017 & 05.02.2024 Of The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Passed Under Section 153Cr.W.S143(3) & 153Ar.W.S143(3) Of The Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2016-17 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). It Appears From The Report Of The Registry That Revenue Has Filed The Above Captioned Appeal After A Delay Of 75 Days, For This Revenue Has Filed A Petition To Condone The Delay.The Ld. Ar Did Not Raise Any Objection In Condoning The Delay. Going Over The Contents Of The Petition Filed By The Revenue, We Find That The Reason Mentioned For Delay Is Genuine & Bona Fide, Accordingly We Condoned The Delay. Since In Both The Appeal Issues Are Common, Hence Taken Up Together For Disposal By Taking The Ita No. 74/2024 As A Lead Case.

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153C