ACIT-CC-1(3), MUMBAI vs. BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS , NAVI MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 153A was not barred by limitation as the definition of 'asset' is comprehensive. It also deleted the addition of interest paid on a loan that was accepted in earlier years and found that the Assessing Officer's inquiry into loans was insufficient.
What were the facts?
The case involves appeals and cross-objections concerning assessment years 2012-13 and 2015-16, arising from a search and seizure action. The assessee, a real estate developer, had 'on money' cash receipts and unexplained expenditures, which the Assessing Officer sought to add to their income.
What were the issues?
The key issues were the validity of the notice under section 153A, the addition of unexplained cash receipts and expenditures, and the genuineness of loans and interest payments under section 68.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 69C,Section 153A,Section 132(4),Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- ITO v. Anand Builders32 citing265 ITR 37
- 459 ITR 7213 citing459 ITR 72
- 49 ITR 723 citing49 ITR 72
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRIRAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
This is the bunch of three appeals filed by The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax , central Circle -1 (3) , Mumbai [The learned AO] and 2 cross objections filed by the assessee in case of 2 entities namely M/s Bhagwati developers and Shanti enterprises [ Assessee] for two assessment years i.e. assessment year 2012 – 13 and 2015 – 16, involving similar issues arising out of same search, similar arguments of the party contesting similar assessment and appellate orders , therefore, disposed of by this common order. Bhagwati Developers A Y 2012- CO No 80/MUM/2024
First we take up the appeal in case of BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS (the assessee) for assessment year 2012 – 13 wherein ITA number 1346/M/2024 is filed by The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – Central Circle – i. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) is justified in restricting the addition to 12.25% of money of ₹ 64,322,169/– received by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit any detail in respect of the cash receipts and profit element arising cannot be asserted as such. ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of unexplained cash expenditure under section 69C of the income tax act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 64,832,240/– without going into the merits of the case discussed in the assessment order.
Assessee is aggrieved and has filed cross objection in CO number 80/M/2024 raising the following grounds of cross objections: – i. on the facts and circumstances of the cross objector's case and in law, the learned CIT A Shanti Developers ITA number 1349/M/2024 and CO number 110/M/2024 (Assessment Year 2012 – 13)
37. The facts in the case of M/S Shanti enterprises in ITA number 1349/M/2024 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 and cross objection filed by the assessee in CO number 110/M/2024 are identical to the ITA number 1346/M/2024 and CO 80/MUL/2024 for assessment year 2012 – 13 in case of Bhagwati developers.
Assessee being a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. During the year under consideration assessee was engaged in construction of plot number 09 situated at Ulwe, plot number 06 kharghar, plot number 127 Ulwe and plot number 12 Ghansoli. For this assessment year assessee filed its return of income on 29/9/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 78,550,000/–. The assessee revised it on 31/3/2017 at total income of Rs. 80,073,600/–. Return of income was taken up for scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143 (2) of the act on 28/7/2016.
A survey was conducted on the assessee on 11/3/2017 based on the information received from the office of the ACIT – unit – 2 Mumbai as per letter dated 13/10/2017 regarding bogus unsecured loan taken by the assessee Order pronounced in the open court on 08/10/2024.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026