ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The intimation under Section 143(1) was issued in March/April 2020, and the appeal was filed on 24.02.2026, representing a delay of several years. The assessee's explanation of being unaware of the demand until recovery proceedings were initiated in January 2026 was not considered satisfactory, especially given the lapse of several years. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided any material to show non-receipt of the intimation through the registered electronic mode or any technical impediment. The arguments regarding the merits of the disallowance, including the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. and legislative amendments, were deemed irrelevant to explaining the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds on merits, the Tribunal also did not consider it appropriate to examine those issues for the first time and dismissed them as infructuous. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the Assessee's explanation for non-compliance prima facie plausible due to the difficulties arising from the CIRP proceedings. It noted that the penalty was sustained by the CIT(A) without the benefit of the Assessee's submissions and documents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the Assessee one further opportunity to substantiate its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal concerning the penalty under section 271AAC(1) was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was made subject to the Assessee depositing costs of Rs. 11,000/- in each appeal within 15 days and furnishing proof thereof. The same reasoning and directions were applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals involving ex parte orders due to non-compliance. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the penalty. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the condition of cost payment.

The Tribunal held that the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were squarely covered by its own decision in the assessee's case for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal reiterated that to invoke the extended limitation period under the fourth proviso to Section 153A, it is mandatory for the AO to demonstrate that the escaped income is "in the form of an asset" and its value exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the AO had not shown that the alleged income escaped assessment was represented "in the form of an asset." The additions made under Section 69A and 69C were not based on any specific asset discovered during the search. Therefore, reopening the assessment beyond six years was in violation of Section 153A/153C, rendering the reassessment order void-ab-initio. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A). The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous due to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal found the Assessee's explanation for non-compliance prima facie plausible due to the difficulties arising from the CIRP proceedings. It noted that the penalty was sustained by the CIT(A) without the benefit of the Assessee's submissions and documents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the Assessee one further opportunity to substantiate its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal concerning the penalty under section 271AAC(1) was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was made subject to the Assessee depositing costs of Rs. 11,000/- in each appeal within 15 days and furnishing proof thereof. The same reasoning and directions were applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals involving ex parte orders due to non-compliance. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the penalty. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the condition of cost payment.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to cash payments for flats, finding that the loose papers alone did not establish the entire cash as unexplained money of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs.98,01,469/- added under section 69C for alleged cash payments to Chinese suppliers, agreeing with the assessee that these payments related to procurement of goods for the business and that a separate addition would duplicate the profit already taxed. Regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found that neither the entire physical stock value nor the estimation of profit on it was justified. The valuation difference of Rs.17,74,324/- was restricted to 5% of this difference, amounting to Rs.88,716, in place of Rs.21,43,312 sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the absence of a remand report and the cumulative effect of evidence. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the Assessee's explanation for non-compliance prima facie plausible due to the difficulties arising from the CIRP proceedings. It noted that the penalty was sustained by the CIT(A) without the benefit of the Assessee's submissions and documents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the Assessee one further opportunity to substantiate its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal concerning the penalty under section 271AAC(1) was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was made subject to the Assessee depositing costs of Rs. 11,000/- in each appeal within 15 days and furnishing proof thereof. The same reasoning and directions were applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals involving ex parte orders due to non-compliance. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the penalty. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the condition of cost payment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of all additions. Regarding the Rs. 23,00,000/- loan addition under section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided primary documents like loan confirmation, bank statements, and the lender's financial material, establishing the lender's identity and creditworthiness. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reliance on Shri Mehta's statement was not sufficiently substantiated by independent adverse findings concerning the loan transaction itself, especially when the assessee sought cross-examination. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Bajaj International Realty by emphasizing the availability of primary documents and audited accounts, and the revenue's failure to point out defects in the assessee's material. The Tribunal held that an untested general statement could not overcome the assessee's transaction-specific explanation without an inquiry addressing that explanation. For the commission addition of Rs. 12,420/- under section 69C, the Tribunal found no evidence that the assessee incurred such expenditure. The rate was derived from Shri Mehta's statement concerning unrelated transactions, and the assessment order did not show a distinct proposed commission addition. The Tribunal directed deletion of this addition. For the interest disallowance of Rs. 1,69,003/-, the Tribunal noted that the AO's sole reason was the characterization of the principal loan as unexplained, which had been set aside. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee claimed income under section 44ADA, where interest is deemed to have been allowed. The Tribunal directed deletion of this disallowance. The AO was directed to recompute the income and tax liability accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 18.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, which is beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year (31.03.2016). Applying the first proviso to Section 149(1), the limitation period as it stood prior to 01.04.2021 is applicable. The Tribunal found that the notice was barred by limitation, as the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1) do not extend the period of limitation applicable to this case. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was invalid, and the assessment order passed pursuant to this invalid assumption of jurisdiction was liable to be quashed. The additions and disallowances made in the assessment proceedings, therefore, do not survive. Any other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and did not require separate adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The intimation under Section 143(1) was issued in March/April 2020, and the appeal was filed on 24.02.2026, representing a delay of several years. The assessee's explanation of being unaware of the demand until recovery proceedings were initiated in January 2026 was not considered satisfactory, especially given the lapse of several years. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided any material to show non-receipt of the intimation through the registered electronic mode or any technical impediment. The arguments regarding the merits of the disallowance, including the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. and legislative amendments, were deemed irrelevant to explaining the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds on merits, the Tribunal also did not consider it appropriate to examine those issues for the first time and dismissed them as infructuous. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the aircraft leases under consideration are dry operating leases and cannot be characterized as finance leases. Consequently, the lease rentals cannot be treated as interest income under Article 11 of the India-Ireland DTAA. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in Sky High XLIII (supra) and the Delhi Tribunal's decision in Celestial Aviation Trading 15 Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, which examined similar lease agreements and concluded they were operating leases. The revenue failed to provide any distinguishing contractual features to warrant a departure from these precedents. Therefore, the AO's approach of treating the entire lease receipts as interest income under section 115A was not sustained. The contention regarding bifurcating principal and interest components also did not survive. Grounds No. 11 to 16 were allowed. Ground No. 19 (interest under section 234B) was consequential and restored to the AO. Grounds No. 1 to 4, raising general and legal contentions, were rendered academic and left open without expressing an opinion on their merits. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments for assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 were unabated. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were in respect of excavation expenses and professional charges debited to the profit and loss account and forming part of work-in-progress. The Tribunal observed that none of these disallowances were based on any incriminating material seized during the search. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained in the absence of any incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowances on merits after appreciating the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and rejected the Revenue's grounds. Regarding the cross-objections, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of a reference to FT & TR, which was claimed to extend the limitation period. In the absence of such evidence, the assessment orders passed on 22.12.2017 were held to be beyond the original limitation of 31st December, 2016, and thus barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessments were set aside as bad in law and void ab initio. The issue regarding approval under section 153D was not expressly decided.

The Tribunal found the Assessee's explanation for non-compliance prima facie plausible due to the difficulties arising from the CIRP proceedings. It noted that the penalty was sustained by the CIT(A) without the benefit of the Assessee's submissions and documents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the Assessee one further opportunity to substantiate its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal concerning the penalty under section 271AAC(1) was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was made subject to the Assessee depositing costs of Rs. 11,000/- in each appeal within 15 days and furnishing proof thereof. The same reasoning and directions were applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals involving ex parte orders due to non-compliance. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the penalty. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the condition of cost payment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded an adequate and reasonable opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already been granted registration under Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) on December 30, 2021. The CIT(E) issued a notice for documents and a hearing date of January 16, 2026. The assessee sought an adjournment, but the CIT(E) rejected the application for renewal without granting further opportunity. Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to first adjudicate the application for registration under Section 12AB and then proceed with the application for approval under Section 80G(5). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the dispute concerns the quantum of profit element to be taxed on purchases of Rs. 52,35,845/- deemed non-genuine. The AO himself noted that the gross profit margin for grey market purchases would not exceed 8% but arbitrarily adopted 25% for the addition without assigning reasons. The Tribunal, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT v. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. and a Coordinate Bench decision in Sumermal Kisturchand Sheth v. ITO, reiterated that when purchases are bogus but sales are accepted, only the profit element should be taxed. The profit rate should be compared with genuine purchases. Given the AO's own observation of an 8% margin, the fact that sales were not disturbed, and the principle from Mohammad Haji Adam & Co., the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of the disputed purchases, deeming it fair and reasonable. The assessee is entitled to consequential relief.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment amount of Rs. 1,26,05,962/- requires verification with reference to the business transfer arrangement and the accounting treatment under Appendix C to Ind AS 103. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not afforded sufficient time to the Assessee for substantiation, and the detailed working was not examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal restored this limited issue to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the purpose of verification of the correctness and quantification of the adjustment. The Assessee is to furnish complete working, reconciliation, and supporting documents, and the AO is to verify the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This remand is confined to the verification of the adjustment and does not reopen any other concluded issue. Consequently, grounds 1 to 5 of the Assessee's appeal relating to this disallowance are restored to the AO. Ground 6 of the Assessee's appeal regarding penalty proceedings under Section 270A is consequential and does not require separate adjudication at this stage. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the Assessee's appeal for the limited purpose of verification.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which clearly states that in cases where no incriminating material is unearthed during a search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess total income in respect of completed/unabated assessments. The Tribunal noted that the regular assessments for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 were completed and unabated at the time of the search on 04.10.2018. The Tribunal further observed that a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Sapphire Developers v. ACIT, dealing with the same search and similar issues, had applied the ratio of Abhisar Buildwell. The Sapphire Developers' case also examined the nature of statements recorded during the search, spot verification, post-search inquiries, and third-party statements, concluding that such material, when not found during the assessee's search, cannot form the basis for additions in unabated assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C were quashed as the foundational assessment under Section 153A was invalid. The issue of set-off of losses was not decided as the primary issue of the validity of the assessment itself was decided against the revenue.

The Tribunal first addressed the Revenue's submission regarding duplicate appeals. It was noted that ITA Nos. 6283 & 6490/Mum/2026 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were indeed duplicate filings. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal perused the orders passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the NCLT order for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The AO had determined the assessee's income at NIL for all three years, acknowledging that the Revenue's claims for these years were not part of the approved Resolution Plan and were thus extinguished. The Tribunal found that the AO's determination of NIL income was a direct consequence of the NCLT's order and the provisions of the IBC, as interpreted in the Ghanshyam Mishra case. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee became infructuous. The Tribunal dismissed all remaining appeals as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer solely on the ground that the liability remained unpaid at the close of the relevant previous year could not be sustained. It noted that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and the expenditure in question did not fall under the specific categories of liabilities covered by Section 43B of the Act. The CIT(A) had correctly considered the allowability of the expenditure on the basis of accrual of liability under the mercantile system. The Tribunal found that the liability had been recorded in the books pursuant to the assessee’s arrangement with the investors, and the Assessing Officer had not provided material to establish that the liability had not accrued or ceased to exist. Furthermore, details evidencing subsequent discharge of the outstanding liabilities during FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 were furnished, which constituted a relevant factual circumstance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it to be in accordance with applicable legal principles. The addition of Rs. 3,23,75,351/- was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) were reasonable and sufficient. The assessee had relied on their tax consultant, and the delay was not intentional. The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst Katiji & Ors. and the Madras High Court in Sreenivas Charitable Trust, emphasizing a pragmatic approach to condoning delays to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the delay condonation application. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer provided insufficient time (less than 4 days), violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 465 days in filing the appeal for the quantum assessment and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. For the penalty appeal, since the assessment order was set aside, the consequential penalty order was also set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for disposal in accordance with the fresh assessment order. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was purely a legal ground concerning the jurisdiction and validity of the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2010-11 was reopened beyond four years by a notice under Section 148 dated 31.07.2017, issued by an ITO below the rank of Joint Commissioner. As per Section 151(2) of the Act (relevant for the assessment year), such a notice issued after four years requires the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The notice issued did not specifically mention from which higher authority the approval was obtained, nor was a copy of the sanction provided to the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not provide a copy of the sanction/approval granted by the Joint Commissioner for the issuance of the notice. Since the Assessing Officer did not provide a copy of the approval from the specified authority, or specifically mention it in the notice, the notice issued under Section 148 was held to be bad in law. Consequently, the assessment framed based on such an invalid notice was also held to be bad in law. The reassessment order was quashed, and the additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed. No other issue was decided.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to cash payments for flats, finding that the loose papers alone did not establish the entire cash as unexplained money of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs.98,01,469/- added under section 69C for alleged cash payments to Chinese suppliers, agreeing with the assessee that these payments related to procurement of goods for the business and that a separate addition would duplicate the profit already taxed. Regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found that neither the entire physical stock value nor the estimation of profit on it was justified. The valuation difference of Rs.17,74,324/- was restricted to 5% of this difference, amounting to Rs.88,716, in place of Rs.21,43,312 sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the absence of a remand report and the cumulative effect of evidence. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made in all three assessment years were outside the permissible scope of assessments framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search having the requisite nexus with the respective additions. The Tribunal noted that the assessment years were unabated as on the date of search. The material relied upon by the Revenue, such as statements recorded during the search, inability of key persons to furnish details of the loan arrangement, and contemporaneous spot verification, did not establish that the loan or the consequential interest expenditure represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal followed the Coordinate Bench decisions in M/s Sapphire Developers and Nikita Shilpin Tater, which held that material gathered during subsequent searches or assessment proceedings, or statements and field inquiries contemporaneous with the search, could not satisfy the requirement of incriminating material for unabated assessments as laid down by the Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Tribunal clarified that it was not examining the genuineness of the lender or the assessee's discharge of burden under section 68, as the foundational jurisdictional requirement of finding incriminating material during the search was not met. Consequently, the additions of Rs. 30,50,000/- and Rs. 2,61,851/- for AY 2013-14, Rs. 4,99,500/- for AY 2014-15, and Rs. 5,20,588/- for AY 2015-16 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the case of the assessee is identical to the case of Shri Rajesh Ravjibhai Patel vs. Asst. CIT Cir 26(2), decided by the same bench (ITA No.328/Mum/2023 for AY 2007-08). In that identical case, the Tribunal observed that the AO's premise was based on information from a pen drive seized during a search and a statement from Shri Ranjan Hiranandani, which merely confirmed receipt of 'on-money' without naming specific individuals. The assessee had submitted details of flat purchases and denied any cash payment, attributing advance payments to a home loan. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct further inquiries from the builder or cross-examine Shri Ranjan Hiranandani. It was held that an addition cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated information from third-party books without further inquiry or corroboration. The burden of proof was considered discharged by the assessee, and the AO failed to bring material on record to disprove the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the addition under section 69B (or section 69 as stated in the AO's order) was deleted on merits. Since the substantive addition was deleted, the legal contentions regarding the validity of the notice under section 148 were rendered academic and infructuous and were not adjudicated. The AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. For two flats (A-804 and A-1103), the differences of Rs. 2,29,610/- (5.00%) and Rs. 1,79,582/- (3.76%) respectively were found to be within a permissible band, and these additions were deleted. Regarding the third flat (A-702), the difference of Rs. 18,25,790/- (51.88%) was substantial. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim regarding a 2011 allotment and consideration fixing required examination. It noted that Section 43CA(2) read with Section 50C(2) provides for reference to the Valuation Officer when the assessee disputes the stamp duty value. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reliance on Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT, stating that the AO ought to refer to the DVO when stamp duty value exceeds disclosed consideration, especially when the assessee specifically requests it. The issue concerning Flat A-702 was restored to the AO for fresh examination, including verification of the 2011 allotment, compliance with Section 43CA(3)/(4), and a potential reference to the DVO.

The Tribunal held that the issue had already been decided in the connected cross-appeals of Shri Narsiram Natharamji Choudhary for assessment year 2015-16. In paragraphs 21 to 26 of that order, the Tribunal had examined the same seized papers, builder's records, statements, and documents concerning cancellation and subsequent sale, and concluded that the alleged cash investment had not been established. The addition of Rs. 8,27,75,848 was deleted, and the Revenue's ground for restoration of a higher addition was dismissed. Specifically, the joint booking of Flat No. 5704 in the names of Smt. Mafari Devi Choudhary and Shri Narsiram Natharamji Choudhary was considered, and it was held that joint booking and matching cheque payments did not establish actual payment of the disputed cash. The deletion of the substantive addition was on merits. The protective additions before the Tribunal arose from the very same alleged cash payments for Flat Nos. 5702, 5703, and 5704 and rested on the same evidence. No independent material establishing payment of the disputed cash by these respondents was brought to notice. The principle permitting protective proceedings where the person chargeable is uncertain does not warrant sustaining these additions when the alleged investment itself was found not established on common material. Following the decision in the main appeals of Shri Narsiram Natharamji Choudhary, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the deletion of the corresponding protective additions by the CIT(A). The effective grounds of the Revenue in all three appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating the merits. The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 143(2) for AY 2007-08 was issued at the assessee's new address, indicating the AO's awareness of the address change. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the assessment order was not received at the new address and that the relevant documents were subsequently obtained, leading to the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex parte and the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was not examined on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the documentary evidence, afford an opportunity of being heard, and adjudicate the issues afresh on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the de novo proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal first addressed the Revenue's submission regarding duplicate appeals. It was noted that ITA Nos. 6283 & 6490/Mum/2026 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were indeed duplicate filings. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal perused the orders passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the NCLT order for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The AO had determined the assessee's income at NIL for all three years, acknowledging that the Revenue's claims for these years were not part of the approved Resolution Plan and were thus extinguished. The Tribunal found that the AO's determination of NIL income was a direct consequence of the NCLT's order and the provisions of the IBC, as interpreted in the Ghanshyam Mishra case. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee became infructuous. The Tribunal dismissed all remaining appeals as infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to cash payments for flats, finding that the loose papers alone did not establish the entire cash as unexplained money of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs.98,01,469/- added under section 69C for alleged cash payments to Chinese suppliers, agreeing with the assessee that these payments related to procurement of goods for the business and that a separate addition would duplicate the profit already taxed. Regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found that neither the entire physical stock value nor the estimation of profit on it was justified. The valuation difference of Rs.17,74,324/- was restricted to 5% of this difference, amounting to Rs.88,716, in place of Rs.21,43,312 sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the absence of a remand report and the cumulative effect of evidence. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act can only be made if the assessee has made investments not recorded in books of account and offers no satisfactory explanation. In the present case, the assessee had not made any investment; rather, the assessee had received unsecured loans. Therefore, the applicability of Section 69 was questionable from the outset. The assessee had furnished PAN details, confirmations, and income-tax returns of the creditors, thereby discharging the initial onus. The Tribunal noted that the AO, in his investigative role, could have conducted further verification, including of bank statements, given the availability of PAN details and other particulars. The AO's inaction or lack of further enquiry could not be a ground for addition, especially when the assessee had discharged the initial onus and no specific defect was pointed out in the documents provided. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee had not made any investment and had provided documentary evidence for the unsecured loans, no addition under Section 69 was warranted. The addition of Rs. 78,85,000 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the applications were not decided on merits, with the regularization application being rejected solely on account of delay, and the 80G application being rejected as a consequence. The Tribunal found that the appellant, an old trust, had provided a reason for the delay (Chartered Accountant's relocation) which, in matters where parties rely on expert services, cannot be considered unacceptable. It was noted that there is no presumption of intentional delay, and the CIT(Exemptions) has the power to condone delay in appropriate cases upon sufficient cause. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had made out a case for condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the applications was condoned, and the impugned orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside. Both applications were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for decision on their own merits. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to cash payments for flats, finding that the loose papers alone did not establish the entire cash as unexplained money of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs.98,01,469/- added under section 69C for alleged cash payments to Chinese suppliers, agreeing with the assessee that these payments related to procurement of goods for the business and that a separate addition would duplicate the profit already taxed. Regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found that neither the entire physical stock value nor the estimation of profit on it was justified. The valuation difference of Rs.17,74,324/- was restricted to 5% of this difference, amounting to Rs.88,716, in place of Rs.21,43,312 sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the absence of a remand report and the cumulative effect of evidence. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue had already been decided in the connected cross-appeals of Shri Narsiram Natharamji Choudhary for assessment year 2015-16. In paragraphs 21 to 26 of that order, the Tribunal had examined the same seized papers, builder's records, statements, and documents concerning cancellation and subsequent sale, and concluded that the alleged cash investment had not been established. The addition of Rs. 8,27,75,848 was deleted, and the Revenue's ground for restoration of a higher addition was dismissed. Specifically, the joint booking of Flat No. 5704 in the names of Smt. Mafari Devi Choudhary and Shri Narsiram Natharamji Choudhary was considered, and it was held that joint booking and matching cheque payments did not establish actual payment of the disputed cash. The deletion of the substantive addition was on merits. The protective additions before the Tribunal arose from the very same alleged cash payments for Flat Nos. 5702, 5703, and 5704 and rested on the same evidence. No independent material establishing payment of the disputed cash by these respondents was brought to notice. The principle permitting protective proceedings where the person chargeable is uncertain does not warrant sustaining these additions when the alleged investment itself was found not established on common material. Following the decision in the main appeals of Shri Narsiram Natharamji Choudhary, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the deletion of the corresponding protective additions by the CIT(A). The effective grounds of the Revenue in all three appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to cash payments for flats, finding that the loose papers alone did not establish the entire cash as unexplained money of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs.98,01,469/- added under section 69C for alleged cash payments to Chinese suppliers, agreeing with the assessee that these payments related to procurement of goods for the business and that a separate addition would duplicate the profit already taxed. Regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found that neither the entire physical stock value nor the estimation of profit on it was justified. The valuation difference of Rs.17,74,324/- was restricted to 5% of this difference, amounting to Rs.88,716, in place of Rs.21,43,312 sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the absence of a remand report and the cumulative effect of evidence. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal first addressed the Revenue's submission regarding duplicate appeals. It was noted that ITA Nos. 6283 & 6490/Mum/2026 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were indeed duplicate filings. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal perused the orders passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the NCLT order for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The AO had determined the assessee's income at NIL for all three years, acknowledging that the Revenue's claims for these years were not part of the approved Resolution Plan and were thus extinguished. The Tribunal found that the AO's determination of NIL income was a direct consequence of the NCLT's order and the provisions of the IBC, as interpreted in the Ghanshyam Mishra case. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee became infructuous. The Tribunal dismissed all remaining appeals as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the applications were not decided on merits, with the regularization application being rejected solely on account of delay, and the 80G application being rejected as a consequence. The Tribunal found that the appellant, an old trust, had provided a reason for the delay (Chartered Accountant's relocation) which, in matters where parties rely on expert services, cannot be considered unacceptable. It was noted that there is no presumption of intentional delay, and the CIT(Exemptions) has the power to condone delay in appropriate cases upon sufficient cause. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had made out a case for condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the applications was condoned, and the impugned orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside. Both applications were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for decision on their own merits. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment amount of Rs. 1,26,05,962/- requires verification with reference to the business transfer arrangement and the accounting treatment under Appendix C to Ind AS 103. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not afforded sufficient time to the Assessee for substantiation, and the detailed working was not examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal restored this limited issue to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the purpose of verification of the correctness and quantification of the adjustment. The Assessee is to furnish complete working, reconciliation, and supporting documents, and the AO is to verify the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This remand is confined to the verification of the adjustment and does not reopen any other concluded issue. Consequently, grounds 1 to 5 of the Assessee's appeal relating to this disallowance are restored to the AO. Ground 6 of the Assessee's appeal regarding penalty proceedings under Section 270A is consequential and does not require separate adjudication at this stage. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the Assessee's appeal for the limited purpose of verification.

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G primarily on the ground of non-compliance with the terms of the notice issued, which prevented the recording of the requisite satisfaction regarding the objects and genuineness of the trust's activities. Observing that the impugned order was passed ex parte, the Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the assessee deserved one more effective opportunity to present all relevant material before the CIT(E). The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice mandate affording an adequate and meaningful opportunity to the applicant to explain its case and furnish necessary documents before rejecting an approval under Section 80G. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored both matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully and furnish all required information without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to cash payments for flats, finding that the loose papers alone did not establish the entire cash as unexplained money of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs.98,01,469/- added under section 69C for alleged cash payments to Chinese suppliers, agreeing with the assessee that these payments related to procurement of goods for the business and that a separate addition would duplicate the profit already taxed. Regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found that neither the entire physical stock value nor the estimation of profit on it was justified. The valuation difference of Rs.17,74,324/- was restricted to 5% of this difference, amounting to Rs.88,716, in place of Rs.21,43,312 sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the absence of a remand report and the cumulative effect of evidence. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the matter required reconsideration at the first appellate stage due to the admission of additional evidence without affording the Assessing Officer (AO) an opportunity to examine it, as mandated by Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC relied on labour bills, ledger accounts, and bank statements, but there was no record of the AO being given a reasonable opportunity to examine or rebut this evidence. This violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the matter to its file for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to afford the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence and then adjudicate the appeal afresh. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition under Section 68, including issues of identity, creditworthiness, genuineness, or the information from the Investigation Wing. These issues are left open for the NFAC's consideration. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the additions made in all three assessment years were outside the permissible scope of assessments framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search having the requisite nexus with the respective additions. The Tribunal noted that the assessment years were unabated as on the date of search. The material relied upon by the Revenue, such as statements recorded during the search, inability of key persons to furnish details of the loan arrangement, and contemporaneous spot verification, did not establish that the loan or the consequential interest expenditure represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal followed the Coordinate Bench decisions in M/s Sapphire Developers and Nikita Shilpin Tater, which held that material gathered during subsequent searches or assessment proceedings, or statements and field inquiries contemporaneous with the search, could not satisfy the requirement of incriminating material for unabated assessments as laid down by the Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Tribunal clarified that it was not examining the genuineness of the lender or the assessee's discharge of burden under section 68, as the foundational jurisdictional requirement of finding incriminating material during the search was not met. Consequently, the additions of Rs. 30,50,000/- and Rs. 2,61,851/- for AY 2013-14, Rs. 4,99,500/- for AY 2014-15, and Rs. 5,20,588/- for AY 2015-16 were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to cash payments for flats, finding that the loose papers alone did not establish the entire cash as unexplained money of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs.98,01,469/- added under section 69C for alleged cash payments to Chinese suppliers, agreeing with the assessee that these payments related to procurement of goods for the business and that a separate addition would duplicate the profit already taxed. Regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found that neither the entire physical stock value nor the estimation of profit on it was justified. The valuation difference of Rs.17,74,324/- was restricted to 5% of this difference, amounting to Rs.88,716, in place of Rs.21,43,312 sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the absence of a remand report and the cumulative effect of evidence. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) were reasonable and sufficient. The assessee had relied on their tax consultant, and the delay was not intentional. The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst Katiji & Ors. and the Madras High Court in Sreenivas Charitable Trust, emphasizing a pragmatic approach to condoning delays to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the delay condonation application. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer provided insufficient time (less than 4 days), violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 465 days in filing the appeal for the quantum assessment and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. For the penalty appeal, since the assessment order was set aside, the consequential penalty order was also set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for disposal in accordance with the fresh assessment order. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal first addressed the Revenue's submission regarding duplicate appeals. It was noted that ITA Nos. 6283 & 6490/Mum/2026 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were indeed duplicate filings. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal perused the orders passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the NCLT order for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The AO had determined the assessee's income at NIL for all three years, acknowledging that the Revenue's claims for these years were not part of the approved Resolution Plan and were thus extinguished. The Tribunal found that the AO's determination of NIL income was a direct consequence of the NCLT's order and the provisions of the IBC, as interpreted in the Ghanshyam Mishra case. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee became infructuous. The Tribunal dismissed all remaining appeals as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which clearly states that in cases where no incriminating material is unearthed during a search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess total income in respect of completed/unabated assessments. The Tribunal noted that the regular assessments for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 were completed and unabated at the time of the search on 04.10.2018. The Tribunal further observed that a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Sapphire Developers v. ACIT, dealing with the same search and similar issues, had applied the ratio of Abhisar Buildwell. The Sapphire Developers' case also examined the nature of statements recorded during the search, spot verification, post-search inquiries, and third-party statements, concluding that such material, when not found during the assessee's search, cannot form the basis for additions in unabated assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C were quashed as the foundational assessment under Section 153A was invalid. The issue of set-off of losses was not decided as the primary issue of the validity of the assessment itself was decided against the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessments for assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 were unabated. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were in respect of excavation expenses and professional charges debited to the profit and loss account and forming part of work-in-progress. The Tribunal observed that none of these disallowances were based on any incriminating material seized during the search. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained in the absence of any incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowances on merits after appreciating the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and rejected the Revenue's grounds. Regarding the cross-objections, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of a reference to FT & TR, which was claimed to extend the limitation period. In the absence of such evidence, the assessment orders passed on 22.12.2017 were held to be beyond the original limitation of 31st December, 2016, and thus barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessments were set aside as bad in law and void ab initio. The issue regarding approval under section 153D was not expressly decided.

The Tribunal held that the additions made in all three assessment years were outside the permissible scope of assessments framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search having the requisite nexus with the respective additions. The Tribunal noted that the assessment years were unabated as on the date of search. The material relied upon by the Revenue, such as statements recorded during the search, inability of key persons to furnish details of the loan arrangement, and contemporaneous spot verification, did not establish that the loan or the consequential interest expenditure represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal followed the Coordinate Bench decisions in M/s Sapphire Developers and Nikita Shilpin Tater, which held that material gathered during subsequent searches or assessment proceedings, or statements and field inquiries contemporaneous with the search, could not satisfy the requirement of incriminating material for unabated assessments as laid down by the Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Tribunal clarified that it was not examining the genuineness of the lender or the assessee's discharge of burden under section 68, as the foundational jurisdictional requirement of finding incriminating material during the search was not met. Consequently, the additions of Rs. 30,50,000/- and Rs. 2,61,851/- for AY 2013-14, Rs. 4,99,500/- for AY 2014-15, and Rs. 5,20,588/- for AY 2015-16 were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the primary dispute concerns the applicability of Section 14A. It observed that the assessee claimed that as a mutual concern, no expenditure was incurred and claimed against exempt income, and that income was offered on a gross basis. The Tribunal referred to a coordinate Bench decision in ACIT vs. Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. (ITA No. 6410/Mum/2016), which dealt with identical facts and circumstances concerning a mutuality concern that did not claim any expenditure. In that case, the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance, agreeing that when income is offered on a gross basis and no expenditure is claimed, the question of disallowance under Section 14A does not arise. However, in the present case, the Tribunal found a slight difference: it was admitted that at least 5% of expenses related to sponsorship income were claimed, and not the entire income was grossed up with no expenses. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for verification of the claim that expenses related solely to sponsorship income and not to investments yielding exempted income. The AO was directed to restrict the disallowance accordingly. Regarding the contention of consistency in prior assessment orders, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, stating that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings, and each year is a separate assessment event. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessments for assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 were unabated. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were in respect of excavation expenses and professional charges debited to the profit and loss account and forming part of work-in-progress. The Tribunal observed that none of these disallowances were based on any incriminating material seized during the search. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained in the absence of any incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowances on merits after appreciating the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and rejected the Revenue's grounds. Regarding the cross-objections, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of a reference to FT & TR, which was claimed to extend the limitation period. In the absence of such evidence, the assessment orders passed on 22.12.2017 were held to be beyond the original limitation of 31st December, 2016, and thus barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessments were set aside as bad in law and void ab initio. The issue regarding approval under section 153D was not expressly decided.

The Tribunal held that the assessments for assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 were unabated. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were in respect of excavation expenses and professional charges debited to the profit and loss account and forming part of work-in-progress. The Tribunal observed that none of these disallowances were based on any incriminating material seized during the search. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained in the absence of any incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowances on merits after appreciating the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and rejected the Revenue's grounds. Regarding the cross-objections, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of a reference to FT & TR, which was claimed to extend the limitation period. In the absence of such evidence, the assessment orders passed on 22.12.2017 were held to be beyond the original limitation of 31st December, 2016, and thus barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessments were set aside as bad in law and void ab initio. The issue regarding approval under section 153D was not expressly decided.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been able to effectively substantiate his engagement in any business activity by producing cogent and corroborative evidence. The claim that receipts represented business receipts liable under Section 44AD remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the declared turnover of ₹1,09,05,007/- exceeded the threshold of ₹1 crore prescribed for AY 2016-17 under Section 44AD, disentitling the assessee from presumptive taxation. The Tribunal also noted that addition under Section 68 could not be sustained for the entire receipts without examining corresponding credits and withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to examine the complete bank account, with reference to deposits and withdrawals, and determine the nature and source of transactions. If unexplained funds/investments are found, the AO may consider the unexplained peak amount for taxation under Section 69. The assessee will be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and explanations. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.