AMERICORP CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 9300/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 March 2026AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for want of prosecution, and there was no finding on the merits of the case. It also observed that similar additions were made in other assessment years, the status of which was not on record. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for expeditious disposal and was at liberty to file necessary explanations and documentation. No specific finding was made on the merits of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Americorp Capital Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 declaring NIL income, which was initially accepted under section 143(3). A search under section 132 in the Indiabulls Group led to the assessee's case being centralized. A notice under section 153C was issued on 25-10-2017, and the assessee filed a revised return on 18-11-2017. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C on 30-03-2018, treating Rs. 1,85,68,000/- as unaccounted cash receipts in the hands of the assessee, based on cash of Rs. 7.85 crores paid by Indiabulls Group. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, as the assessee failed to respond to notices and file submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, thereby denying the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits, turning on the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Assessee's contention: The assessee sought an adjournment due to personal exigency, indicating a desire to pursue the appeal. The dismissal for want of prosecution prevented a decision on the substantive issues. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not present any arguments before the Tribunal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT(SS)A No. 9300/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Americorp Capital DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Private Limited, Kautilya Bhavan, 1607, Lodha Supremus, vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400051. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. PAN : AABCG0127E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Garvi Mehta For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23-03-2026 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 (A)-54, Mumbai [Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 08-10-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its original return of income on 30-09-2011, declaring NIL income, which was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) accepting the returned income. Subsequently, a search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Indiabulls Group on 13-07-2016 and consequent to the search action, the case of the

2 IT(SS)A No. 9300/Mum/2025

assessee was centralized and notice u/s. 153C of the Act, dt. 25-10-2017 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 18-11-2017. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee, but not finding the same acceptable, completed the assessment and passed the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act dt. 30-03-2018, wherein it was held that basis the search and seizure operation and the facts on record, cash amounting to Rs. 7.85 crores paid by M/s. Indiabulls Group has to be considered unaccounted cash receipts in the hands of the assessee and out of the same, Rs. 1,85,68,000/- was brought to tax for the impugned assessment year i.e., AY. 2011-12.

3.

The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), wherein the notices were issued on various occasions, however, the assessee did not respond to the said notices and also failed to file any written submissions. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution, stating that the assessee has not filed any submissions even after allowing sufficient opportunities. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted an adjournment letter dt. 11-03-2026, wherein it was submitted that due to personal exigency in the family, the matter may be adjourned, however, nothing has been specified or stated before us about exact nature of personal exigency, in absence of which, the adjournment request is declined.

5.

Given the fact that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution and there is no finding on the merits of the case by

3 IT(SS)A No. 9300/Mum/2025

the Ld.CIT(A) and also the fact that similar additions were made in other assessment years and the status of those matters are also not borne out from the records, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the matter and is at liberty to file necessary explanation / documentation as so advised.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 23-03-2026

Sd/- Sd/- [MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 23-03-2026 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order

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

More judgments on Section 132

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →