The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →For a completed or unabated assessment, an Assessing Officer generally cannot use section 153A of India’s Income-tax Act, 1961 to make an addition unless incriminating material was found during the search or requisition and supports that addition. The result is different when the assessment was still pending on the search date: that proceeding abates and income is determined afresh. The decisive questions are therefore the assessment’s status, what the search uncovered, and whether that material connects to the disputed addition and assessment year.
What the Supreme Court rule means for section 153A
In PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that additions cannot be made in respect of completed assessments in the absence of incriminating material. The operative formulation, reproduced in a Cuttack ITAT order, is: “In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961.” The passage is attributed to paragraph 56 of the Supreme Court’s decision. Read the Cuttack ITAT order reproducing the passage.
This is a rule about additions in the section 153A process for completed or unabated assessments. It does not make a pending assessment immune from a fresh determination: pending assessments or reassessments abate under the section 153A framework, and the Assessing Officer determines total income in that proceeding.
First establish whether the assessment had concluded
The relevant dividing line is the status of the assessment for the year when the search took place. If proceedings for that year were pending, they abate; if the assessment was completed and unabated, the protection described in Abhisar Buildwell applies to additions made under section 153A. Do not assume status from the year alone. Check the procedural record and the dates relevant to that assessment.
#1 Best Overall
Then test the search material against the addition
For a completed or unabated assessment, the key is not simply whether the department has information about the taxpayer. The question is whether incriminating material was found in the search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, and whether it supports the challenged addition for the relevant year. A useful review should identify the actual seized or requisitioned material, when and where it was found, the assessment year it concerns, and how the Assessing Officer used it to allege undisclosed income.
Material already reflected in accounts or statements, without new material found in the search, was insufficient for the challenged addition in one Cuttack ITAT matter. That is a fact-specific application, not a blanket rule that any previously disclosed item can never have relevance in another case. The Cuttack ITAT order records the court’s reasoning and the case record.
Rank #2
Year-specific linkage matters too. The Cuttack ITAT order discusses Sunny Jacob Jewellers Gold Hyper Market v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported at [2025] 473 ITR 155 (Cal), in connection with material found for one year and additions for other years. That supports careful attention to the connection between search material and the year being assessed; the cited discussion alone should not be treated as a complete account of that High Court decision.
How recent ITAT decisions apply the rule
Autoriders International Limited: Pune ITAT, 5 June 2026
The Pune ITAT restated the connection between section 153A additions and material found in a search or requisition, distinguished pending proceedings from completed assessments, and applied the rule for completed assessments. Read ACIT, Nashik v. Autoriders International Limited.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Dimple Balar: Jodhpur ITAT, 25 March 2026
The Jodhpur ITAT applied Abhisar Buildwell to delete additions where the order found no relevant incriminating material. It also noted that sections 147 and 148 remain available as a separate reopening route, subject to their statutory conditions. Read ACIT v. Dimple Balar.
Hardcastle Restaurant: Mumbai ITAT digest, 14 January 2025
A digest reports deletion of additions in a case with no incriminating material, but labels the assessment “abated.” That characterization may matter when using the case to illustrate the rule for completed assessments, so the digest should not be relied on for that proposition without checking the complete order. Read the Mumbai ITAT digest.
Keep section 153A separate from reopening under sections 147 and 148
The absence of incriminating search material may prevent an addition to a completed or unabated assessment under section 153A, but it does not automatically foreclose every possible reassessment route. The Jodhpur ITAT decision notes that reopening under sections 147 and 148 is saved, subject to the conditions imposed by those provisions. That is a separate statutory route, not an automatic alternative or a conclusion about whether reopening is lawful in any particular case.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.A practical record to check
- Assessment status: Was the relevant year’s assessment pending or completed on the search date?
- Material’s origin: Was the item found in the search or requisition, or was it already disclosed or gathered separately?
- Year-specific connection: Does the material relate to the assessment year in question?
- Support for the addition: How does the assessment order connect the material to the alleged undisclosed income?
- Statutory route: Is the addition being made under section 153A, or is the department invoking a separate reopening under sections 147 and 148?
These questions help organize the issue; deciding it requires review of the assessment order, seized-document inventory, procedural dates, and applicable jurisdictional precedent.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
