ACIT-CC-1(3), MUMBAI vs. BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153A was barred by limitation as the 'on money' receipts and expenditures did not represent an 'asset' as defined in the proviso to Section 153A. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice for that assessment year.
What were the facts?
A search and seizure action was conducted on the assessee, a real estate developer, leading to the discovery of documents related to 'on money' receipts and unexplained expenditures. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 153A for AY 2012-13, which was beyond the prescribed six-year period.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice under Section 153A was validly issued for an assessment year beyond the six-year period when the seized material did not represent an 'asset' as defined in the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- 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 (5 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 2012-13 & 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 153A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, KanchipuramITA 2578/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, OggiamthoraipakkaITA 2577/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shanmugham Thiagarajan, ChennaiITA 2576/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026