SAWALCHAND CHUNILAL BAFNA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7492/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2026AY 2011-1213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Revenue's contention that the appeal is not maintainable due to non-payment of admitted tax liability by the assessee under Section 245D(4) was rejected. The Tribunal reasoned that the Revenue had not filed any appeal against the order of the Settlement Commission, and therefore, the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made an addition on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 without proper investigation or cogent evidence. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence to substantiate the cash credit. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, has filed an appeal against the order dated 16/09/2025 passed by the Addl. JCIT (A)-Panaji. This order pertains to Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal challenges the confirmation of the computation of Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 36,27,887/-. The Revenue's action involved taking the market value as informed by the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of calculating the capital gains. The assessee is aggrieved by this determination of the sale consideration under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal when the assessee has not paid the admitted tax liability as per Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of the Settlement Commission. The assessee contends that the appeal is maintainable as the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of the Settlement Commission. The Revenue argues that the appeal is not maintainable due to non-payment of admitted tax liability by the assessee under Section 245D(4). 2. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified. The assessee argues that the cash credit represents genuine income and has been adequately explained. The Revenue contends that the cash credit is unexplained and therefore liable for addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 245D(4),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni
Pronounced: 16.10.2026

PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Present appeal filed by the assesse arises out of order dated 16/09/2025 passed by the ADDL/JCIT (A)-Panaji [in short, Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12, on following grounds of appeal:

1.

Substitution of Sale Consideration U/sec 50C

1.1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Id. Jt/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Apples), Panaji, erred in confirming the computation of Lon

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 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →