M/S OSWAL FAB KNITS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC- 1,, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 treating share application money as unaccounted income are not sustainable if no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessments were completed prior to the search. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard appeals concerning additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for share application money. These appeals arose from a search action conducted on the Oswal Group of cases.
What were the issues?
Whether additions under Section 68 for share application money are valid without incriminating material found during a search, when assessments were already completed.
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.
- Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.2,379 citing149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · SC
�नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Sharma, CA राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri K.Mehboob Ali Khan,CIT DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals are outcome of the same search action carried out at the Oswal Group of cases on 10.05.2012. Since common facts and issues are involved in these appeals, therefore, same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
The common issue involved in all the appeals is relating to the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the share application money received by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the relevant Paper Book pertaining to for assessment year 2009-10 in the & ITA 25/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 3 case of Oswal Trends P.Ltd. At page 11 of the said Paper Book, there is a copy of the acknowledgement of filing of the return of income. A perusal of the said acknowledgement reveals that the return of income for the said assessment year 2009-10 was filed by the assessee on 01.09.2009.
3.1 Similarly, the ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the copy of acknowledgement for assessment year 2009-10 in the case of Oswal Apparels (ITA No. 430/CHD/2021) and the return for the said assessment year was filed on 31.08.2009.
3.2. Similarly, in the case of Oswal Fab Knits Ltd. (ITA No. 25/CHD/2021), the return for assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 26.10.2009.
3.3. In all the aforesaid cases, the limitation to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act as per the relevant provisions was six months from the end of the Financial Year in which the return of income was filed, which comes to 30.09.2010.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the relevant acknowledgement of return in the case of the assessees for assessment year 2010-11. The & ITA 25/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 4 return of income in the case of Oswal Trends (ITA 428/CHD/2021) was filed on 21.09.2010.
4.1. The return in the case of Oswal Apparels (ITA 431/CHD/2021) was filed on 05.10.2010 and in ITA 426/CHD/2021 in the case of Oswal Fab Knits was filed on 21.09.2010.
4.2. The last date to issue notice under Section 143(2) in relation to the aforesaid cases was 30.09.2011.
Admittedly, search action was carried out in the case of the assessee on 10.05.2012. On the said date of search, the assessment in all the captioned cases was non abated/completed.
A perusal of the assessment order in all these cases would reveal that a common assessment order has been passed by the AO in all these cases. Only the quantum of additions differ for each assessee and assessment year. The additions, as observed above, have been made treating the share application money received by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee. These additions have been made by the AO by way of re-appreciating the information and evidences on record. No incriminating ,426,427,428/CHD/2021 & ITA 25/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 5 material, whatsoever, was found during the course of search action. The issue is squarely covered by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the search action in the case of non abated/completed assessment on the date of search. In view of the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned additions are not sustainable in these cases. is the appeal filed by the Revenue. The AO had deleted the addition of Rs.2,39,40,000/- on account of share application money received by the assessee. It is pertinent to mention here that out of the total addition made by the AO of Rs.5,59,40,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) had sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.3,20,00,000/- and deleted the remaining addition of Rs.2,39,40,000/-. The assessee had filed the appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) against the sustenance of the addition whereas the Revenue had come in appeal against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. ,426,427,428/CHD/2021 & ITA 25/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 6
In view of our observations above, since no incriminating material was found during the course of search action and the assessment in all these cases stood completed/ non-abated on the date of search action, therefore, the impugned additions made by the AO are not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell P.Ltd. (supra).
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 →- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026