DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5709/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-1238 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for bogus purchases, the CIT(A) was correct in restricting the addition to 50% as per the decision in the sister concern's case, and the balance 50% should be reduced from Work in Progress, not added to total income. For on-money receipts, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly restricted the addition to 10% based on the assessee's admission and the principle of restricting additions when partial admission is made. Regarding unexplained cash expenditure, unexplained cash deposits, and unexplained expenditure on hotels/restaurants, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, implying that the CIT(A)'s findings were supported by material on record or that the Revenue failed to establish error. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for penal interest on TDS shortfalls. For section 14A, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned, and the Revenue's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 was not applicable in the context of the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee's cross-objection regarding unexplained expenditure was dismissed as not pressed for AY 2009-10, and for AY 2012-13, it was dismissed on merits, aligning with the decision for AY 2011-12.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee, Samira Habitats India Limited, for assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The appeals challenged orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai. The assessee is in the real estate business. A search and seizure operation on the Samira group on March 21, 2013, led to a notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed assessments on a best judgment basis due to non-response to notices. The AO made additions for bogus purchases, on-money receipts, unexplained cash expenditure, unexplained cash deposits, sale of property, hotel/restaurant expenses, and penal interest on TDS shortfalls. The CIT(A) restricted some additions and deleted others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 50% (Revenue's contention: genuineness not established by assessee). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition for on-money receipts to 10% (Revenue's contention: assessee admitted entire amount before ITSC and offered it to tax under section 132(4)). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained cash expenditure based on search evidence and broker statements (Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in deletion). 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained cash deposits as per ITS data (Revenue's contention: source not established by assessee). 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained expenditure on hotels and restaurants as per ITS data (Revenue's contention: no supporting evidence submitted by assessee). 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance for penal interest on short/no TDS (Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in deletion). 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition under section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned, ignoring CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 (Revenue's contention: disallowance to be made even if no exempt income earned). 8. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition for alleged unexplained expenditure on the basis of ITS data (Assessee's contention).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 133(6),Section 144,Section 14A,Section 153C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(11)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No.5709/MUM/2024
ITA No.5714/MUM/2024
ITA No.5710/MUM/2024
CO No.12/MUM/2025

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10 DCIT- Central Circle-6(2), Room No.450, Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Maharashtra - 400051 Appellant v/s Samira Habitats India Limited G-8, Shrikant Chambers, Sion Tromboy Road, Chembur, Maharashtra - 400071 Respondent PAN: AABCS1677F CO No.12/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.5709/Mum/2024)

Assessment Year : 2011-12 CO No.13/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.5714/Mum/2024)

Assessment Year : 2012-13 CO No.11/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.5710/Mum/2024)

Assessment Year : 2009-10 Samira Habitats India Limited G-8, Shrikant Chambers, Sion Tromboy Road, Chembur, Maharashtra - 400071 PAN: AABCS1677F v/s Cross Objector (Original Respondent) ITA No.5709, 5710, 5714/Mum/2024 & CO No.11, 12 & 13/Mum/2025 2 DCIT- Central Circle-6(2), Room No.450, Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Maharashtra - 400051 Respondent (Original Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR Date of Hearing –

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 132

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →