VIJAS DIGITAL I PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR-13(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 722/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 September 2026AY 2018-1910 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was no violation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by the Assessing Officer. The directions were to be read in their entirety, requiring the assessee to furnish a response within two weeks of communication and the Assessing Officer to pass the order within four weeks of receiving the reply, after providing a personal hearing. The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct, including seeking extensions and providing a complete response on 20.10.2022, meant the assessment order dated 28.10.2022 (digitally signed 01.11.2022) was passed within the stipulated four weeks from the receipt of the full response. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding it germane to the matter. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for necessary examination and verification, to decide afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All contentions on merit were left open. The ratio is that the timeline for assessment orders under High Court directions must consider the complete sequence of events, including the assessee's actions and the final submission of documents, and that additional evidence relevant to the dispute should be admitted for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vijas Digital I Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The original assessment order dated 25.04.2021 was set aside by the Bombay High Court, which remanded the matter for fresh consideration with specific timelines. A subsequent assessment order was passed on 28.10.2022, bringing to tax Rs. 25,92,000/- as unexplained credit under section 68 and Rs. 26,10,301/- for alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) sustained these additions. The assessee contended that the assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the four-week period stipulated by the High Court. The Revenue argued that the assessee's non-cooperation and delayed furnishing of complete documents extended the timeline.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed on 28.10.2022 is barred by limitation, as it was allegedly passed beyond the four-week period granted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court for passing the assessment order, and whether it conforms to the High Court's order (turning on the interpretation of the High Court's directions and the timeline for passing the assessment order). Assessee's Contention: The assessment order was passed beyond the four weeks specified by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and is therefore barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. The assessee relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT. Revenue's Contention: The four-week period should be calculated from the date of receipt of the assessee's complete reply, not from initial partial responses. The assessee actively participated in the proceedings, sought personal hearings, and requested further time, which extended the timeline. The assessment order was passed within twelve days of receiving the full response and complied with the High Court's principal purpose. The additional grounds are based on an incorrect computation of the period and should be dismissed. 2. Whether the additions made to the income of the assessee, aggregating to Rs. 52,02,301/- (Rs. 25,92,000/- for unexplained credit and Rs. 26,10,301/- for alleged bogus purchases), are justified, particularly when the assessee claims the same transaction has been taxed twice without a reasonable opportunity to present its case (turning on the provisions of Section 68 and the principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contention: The same transaction (purchases and payments) with M/s. Culminating Projects Pvt. Ltd. has been taxed twice. The assessee was not confronted with specific information regarding the party name and particulars until the assessment order. Due to a lack of proper opportunity, relevant documentation could not be submitted. The assessee claims genuine purchases and payments through banking channels and seeks admission of additional evidence (purchase invoices, ledger confirmations, bank statements, GSTR-2A) for remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH; MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 722/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Vijas Digital I Pvt. Ltd. DCIT CIR-13(3)(2) C1, Vijas House, Cama Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Anna Nagar, Walbhat Road, vs. Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400020. Goregaon (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400063

PAN: AACCV2390K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv. For Revenue : Ms. Tsering Majumder, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 16.06.2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the appeal as pointed out by the Registry. In this regard, the ld. AR taken us through the condonation application as well as the affidavit filed by the assessee and it was submitted that the delay so happened in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be admitted for adjudication. The ld. DR has been heard. After hearing both the parties and considering

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd the affidavit placed on record, the contents of which have not been rebutted by the Revenue, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

Further, the ld AR submitted that the assessee seeks permission to raise the following additional grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC"), pursuant to the order of the Honorable High Court is barred by limitation since the same is passed beyond the time limit granted by the Honorable High Court for passing the assessment order. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and void since it is passed much beyond the period of 4 weeks granted by the Hon'ble High Court and also because it does not conform to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and rather goes beyond the order of the Hon'ble High Court. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed and it is prayed accordingly.” 4. It was submitted by the ld AR that these are purely legal grounds of appeal and same may be admitted and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383). The ld. DR has been heard, who has not raised any specific objections against the admission of these grounds of appeal. Considering the fact that all relevant facts and material required for adjudication of these grounds are available on record, we find that these are purely legal grounds of appeal and the same are accordingly admitted for adjudication.

5.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The original assessment order was passed on 25.04.2021 under section 143(3) read with 144B of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and vide order dated 29.09.2021, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court set aside the original assessment order and

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd remanded the matter to the Assessing officer for fresh consideration. Thereafter, fresh notices were issued from time to time and after issuing show cause and personal hearing and taking into considerations submissions filed by the assessee, the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with 250 read with 144B of the Act dated 28.10.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer brought to tax a sum of Rs. 25,92,000/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act, and an amount of Rs. 26,10,301/- towards alleged bogus purchases.

6.

The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has since sustained the order and the findings of the Assessing Officer. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

7.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR drawn our reference to the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and it was submitted that in the said order, specific timelines have been prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court for the AO to follow to pass the assessment order and as can be seen, the assessment order was passed beyond the period of four weeks as specified by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and therefore, the same is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

8.

In response, the ld. DR submitted that the direction contained in paragraph 5 of the Hon'ble High Court's order must be read in its entirety wherein the assessee was first directed to file "a reply" within two weeks of receiving a communication from the AO and the AO was thereafter directed to pass the fresh assessment order within four weeks of receiving "the reply". It was further submitted that pursuant to this direction, the AO issued the detailed notice under section 142(1) dated 31.12.2021. The assessee did not furnish the complete information and supporting documents called for therein. It was submitted that the responses dated 15.01.2022 and 17.01.2022 so filed by the assessee were expressly

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd recorded as partial responses. It was submitted that at pages 4 and 5 of the assessment order, the AO recorded that the assessee had failed to furnish the bank statements highlighting the relevant transactions, cash book, purchase way bills. In the absence of these primary documents, the PAN details impugned purchases and credits could not be verified. It was further submitted that the assessee cannot treat its incomplete responses as the reply contemplated by the Hon'ble High Court's direction while simultaneously withholding the documents required to complete the fresh assessment. Such an interpretation would permit the assessee to rely upon its own incomplete compliance to seek annulment of the assessment. The subsequent conduct of the assessee is material. It was submitted that the assessee continued to participate in the fresh assessment proceedings, sought a personal hearing on 14.10.2022, attended the hearing on 17.10.2022 and itself requested further time to furnish its complete response. It was submitted that acting upon the assessee's request, the AO granted further time up to 21.10.2022. The assessee furnished its full response on 20.10.2022. Thus, the record itself distinguishes the partial responses filed in January 2022 from the full response furnished on 20.10.2022. It was submitted that the assessment order bears the date 28.10.2022 and was digitally signed on 01.11.2022. Even if the digital- signature date of 01.11.2022 is adopted, the order was passed within twelve days from receipt of the full response dated 20.10.2022 and, therefore, within the period of four weeks specified by the Hon'ble High Court. The principal purpose of the Hon'ble High Court's order was also fully complied with. Unlike the original proceedings, the assessee was granted a detailed show- cause notice, a personal hearing through video conference and further time at its own request to furnish documents. It was submitted that the assessee availed itself of these opportunities and submitted its full response on 20.10.2022. It cannot, after participating in the proceedings and seeking additional time, disregard its own subsequent response and contend that

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd the period must be calculated from the incomplete submissions filed in January, 2022. It was submitted that the fresh assessment was not passed in disregard of or contrary to the Hon'ble High Court's order. It was passed after granting the personal hearing expressly directed by the Court and within four weeks from receipt of the assessee's full reply. It was submitted that additional Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are consequently based upon an incorrect computation of the relevant period and deserve to be dismissed.

9.

We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record and find that there is no violation of the directions so issued by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by the Assessing officer. The directions so issued by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court have to be read in its entirety and were directed at both the assessee as well as the Assessing officer. The assessee was directed to furnish its response within period of two weeks after receipt of communication from the Assessing officer and thereafter, the Assessing officer was directed to pass the assessment order with four weeks of receiving the reply from the assessee and after providing personal hearing to the assessee. The information/explanation as sought from the assessee by the Assessing officer are contained in his initial notice dated 31.12.2021 and the same was responded to by the assessee in piecemeal manner in terms of its submissions dated 15.01.2022 and thereafter in its submissions dated 17.01.2022 and finally, in response to show-cause dated 28.09.2022 where the assessee was reminded of the pending information/explanation and after availing personal hearing, finally on 20.10.2022 and considering the same, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing officer on 28.10.2022. The assessee was well aware of the timelines so directed by the Hon’ble High Court, however, submitted partial information from time to time and sought time from the Assessing officer. Therefore, we find that as far as the initial directions of the

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd Hon’ble High Court is concerned, the assessee complied with the same only on 20.10.2022 and thereafter, the Assessing officer taking into consideration the entirety of information/documentation and the explanation so submitted by the assessee, completed the assessment proceedings and pass the assessment order on 28.10.2022, within the period of four weeks as directed by the Hon’ble High Court. Here, it is relevant to note that as against the proposed addition in the show-cause wherein the Assessing officer proposed addition of Rs 3,62,73,216 towards bogus purchases, Rs 1,20,09,788/- towards unexplained salaries and wages, Rs 5,78,86,933/- towards unexplained expenses, Rs 1,19,76,574/- towards depreciation and Rs 52,02,602/- towards accommodation entries taken by the assessee, in the final assessment order, after considering the explanation/documentation so finally submitted, didn’t draw any adverse inference and didn’t make any addition except for the accommodation entries of Rs. 52,02,602/-. This reflects that only pursuant to the issuance of the show-cause on 29.09.2022, the assessee submitted complete information/documentation and after verifying the same, the Assessing officer has passed the assessment order. We, therefore, donot find any merit in the contentions advanced by the ld AR that there is any violation of the directions so issued by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by the Assessing officer. The grounds of appeal so taken by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

10.

Now, coming to merits of the case wherein the addition of Rs. 26,10,301/- and Rs. 25,92,000/- totaling to Rs. 52,02,301/- sustained by the ld CIT(A), it was submitted by the ld AR that the same is in respect of the same party namely, M/s. Culminating Projects Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Assessing Officer has brought to tax both the amount of the purchases and the payments so made by the assessee. It was submitted that all along, the Assessing Officer stated that he received

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd information from DIT, Investigation Kolkata that the assessee has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 52,20,602/- from companies or firms operated by Shri Kamal Kumar Jain and in response, the assessee has submitted that it has not entered into any such transaction of Rs 52,20,602/- with the aforesaid persons. It was submitted that the assessee was not confronted with the specifics of the said information in terms of name of the party, particulars etc. and only on receipt of the assessment order, the assessee came to know of the name of the party namely M/s. Culminating Projects Pvt. Ltd and the addition has been made by the AO both in respect of purchases and payment thereof. It was submitted that the same transaction has been taxed twice and that too, without allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It was accordingly submitted that due to lack of proper opportunity, the assessee could not submit the relevant documentation during the course of assessment proceedings and then before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has brought the said fact to the notice of the ld CIT(A) as evident from the written submissions submitted before the ld CIT(A), however, the said request was not accepted and the additions were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assesse has made genuine purchase from the said party, all documentation are in place and the payment has been made through banking channel. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the assessee’s paperbook wherein, the assessee has submitted copy of purchase invoices, ledger confirmations, and the bank statements highlighting the payments made, and also copy of GSTR-2A highlighting purchases made by the assessee from M/s. Culminating Projects Private Limited. It was submitted that, given that the same are additional evidences and submitted for the first time before this Tribunal, the same may be admitted in the interest of justice and the matter may be remanded for necessary verification.

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd 11. The ld. DR has been heard, who has relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee has been provided more than adequate opportunities by the Assessing Officer. Further, reference was drawn to the findings of the Assessing Officer, and it was submitted that the Assessing Officer was in receipt of specific information that the assessee has taken bogus accommodation entry, and basis that information and in the absence of any rebuttal by the assessee or any documentary evidence substantiating the purchases so made, the Assessing Officer has gone ahead and made the addition in the hands of the assessee. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has referred to the sundry creditors ledger wherein, there are separate figures reflected at Rs. 25,92,000/- and Rs. 26,10,301/- against M/s. Culminating Projects Private Limited, and it was therefore submitted that these are separate transactions and not necessarily the payments made against the purchases as so claimed by the assessee, as the material available on record does not support that contention.

12.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny basis information received from DIT(Investigation) that the assessee has obtained bogus credits and purchases aggregating to Rs 52,20,602/- from concerns operated by Shri Kamal Kumar Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhyay and Shri Ranjit Kumar Singh. Thereafter, in the notice issued on 31.12.2021 and in the final show-cause issued on 29.09.2022, the Assessing has referred to the said information and has sought information/explanation from the assessee. In its response, especially given the volume of transactions, the assessee has shown its helplessness and ignorance in terms of identifying/undertaking any purchases from the persons so name by the Assessing officer and the attention of the ld CIT(A) was also drawn to this effect and the fact that the specific of the

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd entity came to knowledge of the assessee only on receipt of the assessment order. Further, it has been contended that the assessee has made purchases from Culminating Projects Pvt Ltd only to the tune of Rs 26,10,301/- and has made payment of Rs 25,92,000/- and necessary documentation has been placed by way of additional evidence and it is case of genuine purchase and in any case, addition cannot be twice. On perusal of the documentation so placed, we find that the same are germane to the examination of the matter under consideration and the same are hereby admitted and matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing officer for necessary examination/verification and to decide the same afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the contentions on merit are left open and the assessee is at liberty to raise the same before the Assessing officer where so advised.

13.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- PAWAN SINGH VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 28.09.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

ITA No. 722/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2018-19 Vijas Digital I Pvt Ltd By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →