PARAM PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,AMBERNATH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 3241/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 February 2026AY 2016-1757 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal. Regarding the alleged non-genuine loans from Samyak Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Vansh & Co., the Tribunal noted that the AO had held the loans to be not genuine, citing that the creditor companies were not found at their given addresses and were suspected of being Surat/Kolkata-based shell companies involved in providing accommodation loans. The CIT(A) had upheld these additions. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, found that the issue had been elaborately dealt with by the CIT(A) and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Similarly, for additions based on seized chits representing unaccounted cash receipts, the Tribunal found that the facts and circumstances were similar to preceding assessment years (specifically AY 2017-18) where the CIT(A)'s decision had already been upheld by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the grounds of appeal concerning these additions. The appeals were dismissed in their entirety.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern various assessment years from 2011-12 to 2020-21, filed by several entities within the Patel Realty group, including Param Property Developers, Pride Infrastructure, Shree Sahjanand Enterprise, Dharmik Structures, DIA Infratech, and Rapid Infratech Pvt. Ltd. These appeals challenge orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which upheld assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A/153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessments followed search and seizure operations conducted under Section 132 of the Act. The primary issues revolve around additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) concerning unsecured loans and cash receipts based on seized materials.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the block assessment orders passed are against natural justice and bad in law, warranting annulment? (Question of law) 2. Whether the addition of principal and interest on alleged non-genuine loans from Samyak Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Vansh & Co. is justified under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, especially when the assessee claims to have provided satisfactory explanations and supporting documents? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether additions based on chits found and seized, representing alleged unaccounted cash receipts, are justified under Section 69A, particularly when the assessee contends the additions are not based on incriminating material found during the search? Assessee's Contentions: - The block assessment orders are bad in law and against natural justice. (Ground 1 for multiple appeals) - Additions concerning loans from Samyak Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Vansh & Co. are unjustified as the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with supporting evidence. (Ground 2 & 3 for Param Property Developers) - Additions based on seized chits are not justified as they are not based on incriminating material found during the search and the transactions were already recorded in books. (Ground 2 & 3 for Param Property Developers, Ground 2 for Shree Sahjanand Enterprise, Ground 2 for Dharmik Structures, Ground 2 for DIA Infratech, Ground 2 for Rapid Infratech Pvt. Ltd.) Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided excerpt, but their stance is reflected in the AO's orders and the CIT(A)'s confirmations of those orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 153C,Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 69A,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Patel,AR
For Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 28.01.2026Pronounced: 20.02.2026

आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT विभागीय प्रविवनवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, 4. Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

P a g e | 57 ITA No. 3241 3242 3243 3309 3310 3244 3245 3246 2873 2874 2875 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 /Mum/2025 A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 Param Property Developers and Ors.

सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →