DCIT CEN CIR 3, THANE vs. TEENA HOUSING FINANCE P.LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that since the assessment year was unabated, the addition could only be made if incriminating material was found during the search. As no such material was found, the addition was invalid.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in real estate, had its assessment completed under section 143(3). Following a search under section 132, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 50 lakhs as unexplained share capital under section 68. The CIT(A) deleted this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether an addition under section 68 for share capital can be made in section 153A proceedings for an unabated assessment year without any incriminating material found during the search.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.1,823 citing374 ITR 645 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)
The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.3.2017 passed by the learned CIT(A)-11, Pune and it relates to A.Y. 2007- 08. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ` 50 lakhs relating to share capital added by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act.
I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee-company is engaged in real estate business. It field return of income for the year under consideration on 17.9.2007 and assessment thereof was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee was subjected to the search u/s. 132 of the Act on 12.9.2012 and consequent thereto the Assessing Officer passed the impugned assessment order u/s. 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. In the said assessment the Assessing Officer assessed the share capital receipts of ` 50 lakhs as unexplained cash credit.
2 Teena Housing Finance P. Ltd.
Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the impugned assessment year is unabated year and hence addition can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. It was submitted that the search team did not find any incriminating material relating to impugned addition of ` 50 lakhs and hence the Assessing Officer could not have made said addition in 153A proceedings. Ld CIT(A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and accordingly deleted the addition. Aggrieved the Revenue has filed this appeal before us.
Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. On the contrary, learned AR submitted that the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) is in accordance with the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Shiva)Ltd. (374 ITR 645 and accordingly he submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
Having heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference with the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) is in accordance with the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Shiva)Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, I uphold the order passed by the learned CIT(A).
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 19.9.2017.
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 →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026