DCIT- CC- 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL AGASTYA OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5225/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2011-1213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessments for assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 were unabated. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were in respect of excavation expenses and professional charges debited to the profit and loss account and forming part of work-in-progress. The Tribunal observed that none of these disallowances were based on any incriminating material seized during the search. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained in the absence of any incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowances on merits after appreciating the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and rejected the Revenue's grounds. Regarding the cross-objections, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of a reference to FT & TR, which was claimed to extend the limitation period. In the absence of such evidence, the assessment orders passed on 22.12.2017 were held to be beyond the original limitation of 31st December, 2016, and thus barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessments were set aside as bad in law and void ab initio. The issue regarding approval under section 153D was not expressly decided.

What were the facts?

The appeals and cross-objections were filed by the Revenue and the assessee against orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. The Revenue's grounds challenged the deletion of additions related to closing work-in-progress, arguing the assessee failed to prove genuineness of expenditure and comply with notices. The assessee's cross-objections argued that the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A were barred by limitation under section 153B and lacked proper approval under section 153D. The assessee contended that for unabated assessments, additions could not be made without incriminating material found during search, citing the Supreme Court decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions, finding no incriminating material and also on merits.

What were the issues?

1. (Question of Law) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,82,92,698/- relating to reduction in closing work-in-progress, ignoring the failure of the assessee to discharge the onus of proving genuineness of expenditure and non-compliance of notices issued u/s 133(6)? (Revenue's Ground 1) 2. (Question of Law) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the addition was based on suspicion and conjectures, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had conducted independent enquiries and the addition was based on material evidence and surrounding circumstances? (Revenue's Ground 2) 3. (Question of Law) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting self-serving documentary evidences as conclusive proof of genuineness, ignoring the settled legal position that mere documentary evidence and banking transactions do not establish genuineness in absence of verification of parties and actual execution of work? (Revenue's Ground 3) 4. (Question of Law) Whether the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is barred by limitation under section 153B of the Act? (Assessee's Cross Objection I) 5. (Question of Law) Whether the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is void for want of proper approval u/s. 153D of the Act? (Assessee's Cross Objection II) Assessee's Contentions: For unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during search, relying on PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell. The CIT(A) correctly deleted additions as no incriminating material was found and also on merits. The assessment orders were barred by limitation under section 153B as the AO failed to provide evidence of FT & TR reference extending the period. The orders were also void for lack of proper approval under section 153D. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 153B,Section 153D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (7 matters)

ITA 5208/MUM/2026
ITA 5209/MUM/2026
ITA 5225/MUM/2026
ITA 5226/MUM/2026
ITA 5227/MUM/2026
ITA 5212/MUM/2026
CO 243/MUM/2026

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई पीठ", मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: C BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.M. DOSS, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 5208/MUM/2026 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA 5209/MUM/2026 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITA 5225/MUM/2026 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITA 5226/MUM/2026 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA 5227/MUM/2026 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA 5212/MUM/2026 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15)

DCIT- CC- 8(4), MUMBAI PIRAMAL AGASTYA OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED ROOM NO. 659 6TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN M K ROAD 8TH FLOOR PIRAMAL TOWER, MUMBAI-400020, MUMBAI-, MUMBAI -400013 MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent CO 243/MUM/2026 (Arising out of ITA 5208/MUM/2026) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10)

PIRAMAL AGASTYA OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED

CO 244/MUM/2026 (Arising out of ITA 5209/MUM/2026) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) CO 245/MUM/2026 (Arising out of ITA 5225/MUM/2026) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) CO 246/MUM/2026 (Arising out of ITA 5226/MUM/2026 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012

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 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →