ITO WARD -2(1), KOOLKATA vs. UNICORN LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 688/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 January 2026AY 2012-135 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2012-13 was unabated on the date of the search (September 9, 2015), as the assessment under Section 143(3) had already been framed on March 2, 2015. The Tribunal noted that the AO relied on the books of account and evidence furnished by the assessee, and did not refer to any incriminating material seized during the search. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Tribunal also found that the case was squarely covered by its own co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, which followed the Abhisar Buildwell judgment. The principle is that in the case of unabated/completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed, and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

A search action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted on the 'Uniglobal Group' on September 9, 2015. The assessee, Unicorn Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., was part of this group. A notice under Section 153A was issued. The assessee had filed an original return for AY 2012-13 on August 20, 2012, declaring a total income of ₹6,30,090. Subsequently, an assessment under Section 143(3) was framed on March 2, 2015, assessing total income at ₹2,50,30,642. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the issuance of equity shares at a premium, raising ₹1,15,00,000. Summons to shareholders under Section 131 were not complied with, leading the AO to add this amount as an unexplained cash credit. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this addition, which is now under challenge by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to make an addition on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 was unabated on the date of search and no incriminating material was seized during the search action. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its cross objection, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The primary argument, as reflected in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and the Tribunal's reasoning, is that since the assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's appeal challenges the deletion of ₹1,15,00,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68, based on seized documents marked UPPL/3, which it considered incriminating material.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 16.01.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 688/KOL/ 2025
CO No. 51/KOL/2025

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

These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-21, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.02.2025 for the AY 2012-13.

3.

The facts in brief are that a search action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted on “Uniglobal Group” of cases on 09.09.2015 and subsequent dates. The assessee being a group company was also covered under the said search and notice u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice assessee company filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹6,49,610/- on 28.08.2017. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. Pertinent to note that the assessee filed the original return of income on 20th August, 2012, declaring total income of ₹6,30,090/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) was framed vide order dated 02.03.2015, assessing the total income at ₹2,50,30,642/-. The assessee replied the questionnaire issued by the ld. AO with all evidences. The ld. AO on the basis of the evidences filed by the assessee and on the basis of audited accounts observed that the assessee has issued equity share of ₹10/- each at a premium of ₹40/- to various entities thereby raising ₹1,15,00,000/- during the instant financial year. The ld. AO also issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the shareholders to ascertain the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and genuineness of the transactions. However, the summons was not complied with. Finally, the ld. AO added the said amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment has not abated on the date of search as the search was conducted on 09.09.2015 and on the date of search no proceedings were pending as the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was already framed on 02.03.2015. We note that during the course of search assessment proceedings, the ld. AO relied mainly on the books of account and evidences furnished by the assessee to make the addition and has not referred to any incriminating material seized during the search. The ld. CIT (A) appreciating the said facts correctly, deleted the addition by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). We also note that the case is squarely covered by assessee’s own case in for A.Y. 2011-12, which was also covered in the same search vide order dated 15.01.2025, wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held as under:-

“5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the return of income was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.07.2011. A search action u/s 132(1) was conducted on the assessee on 09.09.2015. So, on the date of search there were no pending proceedings before the AO qua this assessment year and also that the time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) had already expired. Therefore, the impugned assessment was unabated on the date of search or had attained finality in terms provisions of section 153A of the Act. Now the issue before us for adjudication is whether the AO has jurisdiction to make additions without there being any incriminating

6.

In the result, CO and the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2026.

More judgments on Section 132

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →