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

Ans Dhivyam Jewells, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3746/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3743, 3744, 3745 & 3746/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Ans Dhivyam Jewells, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 184/385, Bazaar Street, Income Tax, Salem 636 001. Central Circle 3, Salem. [Pan:Aakfa1977G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 20.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22. 2. Since Issues Raised In These The Appeals Of The Assessees Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153C

Ans Dhivyam Jewells, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3745/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3743, 3744, 3745 & 3746/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Ans Dhivyam Jewells, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 184/385, Bazaar Street, Income Tax, Salem 636 001. Central Circle 3, Salem. [Pan:Aakfa1977G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 20.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22. 2. Since Issues Raised In These The Appeals Of The Assessees Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153C

Ans Dhivyam Jewells, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3744/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3743, 3744, 3745 & 3746/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Ans Dhivyam Jewells, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 184/385, Bazaar Street, Income Tax, Salem 636 001. Central Circle 3, Salem. [Pan:Aakfa1977G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 20.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22. 2. Since Issues Raised In These The Appeals Of The Assessees Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153C

Ans Dhivyam Jewells, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3743/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3743, 3744, 3745 & 3746/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Ans Dhivyam Jewells, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 184/385, Bazaar Street, Income Tax, Salem 636 001. Central Circle 3, Salem. [Pan:Aakfa1977G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 20.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22. 2. Since Issues Raised In These The Appeals Of The Assessees Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153C

Yuvarani, Surampatti S.O vs. The Act, Central Cir 3, Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3128/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3128/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Yuvarani, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 75/8, Pavadi Street, Surampatti Valasu, Income Tax, Surampatti S.O. Erode, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu 638 009. [Pan:Akcpy2234J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. C. Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 35 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 153C