SHRI HASMUKHLAL INDERCHAND RANAWAT,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2980/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 April 2024AY 2018-1911 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

For unabated assessment years, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during search, thus the deemed rent addition was deleted. For the abated assessment year, the deemed rent addition was upheld as the property was used by a private limited company, not the assessee's own business. For the year with seized cash, the addition was deleted as the assessee successfully rebutted the presumption that the cash belonged to him, proving it belonged to business concerns operating from the same premises.

What were the facts?

During a survey operation, a significant amount of cash was found with the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for deemed rent in some assessment years and treated the seized cash as unexplained income in another. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether additions in unabated assessment years under Section 153A can be made without incriminating material. Whether 'deemed rent' is applicable when a property is used by a company in which the assessee is a director. Whether seized cash can be treated as unexplained income when the assessee provides evidence that it belongs to business concerns.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 23(4)(b),Section 24,Section 132(4),Section 69A,Section 132(4A),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI E BENCH, MUMBAI.

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal
For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Hearing: 05.02.2024Pronounced: 01.04.2024

Heard together (6 matters)

I.T.A. No. 2977/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 2978/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 2979/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 2980/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 2981/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 2982/Mum/2023

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

PER BENCH:- All these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-50, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment years 2015-16 to 2020-21. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.

2.

The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. The assessee is an individual and is partner in few partnership firms and also director in few private limited companies. The revenue carried our survey operations u/s 133A of the Act on 18-10-201

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 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →