THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3223/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 October 2025AY 2021-2267 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were liable to be annulled for want of jurisdiction and procedural legitimacy. Specifically, assessments reopened under section 147 were quashed as void ab initio for having been initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A. Furthermore, the assessment orders were invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions relating to diary entries not specifically identified, explained, and linked to the assessee. The revenue's attempt to revive these entries was deemed a futile exercise. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's plea for enhancement of income, citing lack of cogent material and the limitations on enhancement powers. Consequently, all additions made towards alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains and additions under section 69A or 69C towards unexplained money or expenditure were deleted in full. All consequential adjustments were rendered academic.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard a batch of appeals concerning The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. (assessee) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) (revenue) for assessment years ranging from 2012-13 to 2022-23. The appeals arose from search and survey operations conducted on October 7, 2021, which led to the seizure of diaries, loose papers, and digital data. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on these documents and statements recorded under section 132(4), including capital gains on alleged NOC receipts and unexplained money under section 69A. The assessee challenged these additions, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted partial relief. The revenue also filed appeals against the relief granted by the CIT(A). The ITAT consolidated the appeals for common adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gains on NOC receipts and unexplained money under section 69A, based on seized diaries and statements recorded under section 132(4), are sustainable? (Question of law and fact, relating to Sections 69A, 147, 153A). - Assessee's contention: The seized documents and statements lack corroborative proof and evidentiary value to sustain the additions. The AO erred in bifurcating entries and treating them as capital receipts or unexplained money without proper justification. - Revenue's contention: The CIT(A) erred in deleting additions relating to diary entries not marked 'KB' and in holding that they could not be attributed to the assessee without corroborative proof. The revenue also sought enhancement of income on the footing that certain unaccounted receipts were wrongly omitted or under-assessed. 2. Whether the reassessment orders were validly passed, considering potential procedural irregularities such as lack of jurisdiction under the Faceless Assessment Scheme and non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 regarding DIN? (Question of law, relating to Sections 147, 151A). - Assessee's contention: The assessments were reopened without jurisdiction and in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme. Assessment orders were also invalidated for non-compliance with the DIN requirement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151A,Section 153A,Section 251,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(13)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 3928/Mum/2025
ITA No.3012/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

| ITA No. | A.Y | |---------------------|-----------| | 3012/Mum/2025 | 2014-15 | | 3013/Mum/2025 | 2016-17 | | 3228/Mum/2025 | 2015-16 | | 3227/Mum/2025 | 2017-18 | | 3225/Mum/2025 | 2019-20 | | 3224/Mum/2025 | 2020-21 | | 3223/Mum/2025 | 2021-22 | | 3222/Mum/2025 | 2022-23 |

The Estate Investment | Vs. | DCIT, CC-8(1), Mumbai Company Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, 139, Seksaria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort Mumbai – 400 001

| PAN/GIR No.AAACE2566J | (Appellant) | .. (Respondent)

ITA No. 3928/Mum/2025, 3087/Mum/2025, & 3936/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2015-16 to 2017-18)

DCIT, Mumbai

CC-8(1), Vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, 139, Seksaria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort Mumbai – 400 001

| PAN/GIR No.AAACE2566J | (Appellant) | .. (Respondent) The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others

Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement

Shri Madhur Agrawal, Adv. & Shri Pankaj Jain, CA Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR 19/08/2025 17/10/2025

आदेश / O R

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →