AMERICORP CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(4), MUMBAI

ITSSA 9300/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Americorp Capital Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-54, Mumbai, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12. Initially, the assessee filed a NIL income return, which was accepted. However, following a search and seizure operation related to the Indiabulls Group, unaccounted cash receipts were attributed to the assessee, leading to a reassessment. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) due to non-response, prompting the current appeal. The Tribunal decided to set aside the dismissal and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847763 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: GARVI MEHTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 9300/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Americorp Capital Private Limited, 1607, Lodha Supremus, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. PAN : AABCG0127E vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Garvi Mehta For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23-03-2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-54, Mumbai [Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 08-10-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its original return of income on 30-09-2011, declaring NIL income, which was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) accepting the returned income. Subsequently, a search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Indiabulls Group on 13-07-2016 and consequent to the search action, the case of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 IT(SS)A No. 9300/Mum/2025 assessee was centralized and notice u/s. 153C of the Act, dt. 25-10-2017 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 18-11-2017. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee, but not finding the same acceptable, completed the assessment and passed the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act dt. 30-03-2018, wherein it was held that basis the search and seizure operation and the facts on record, cash amounting to Rs. 7.85 crores paid by M/s. Indiabulls Group has to be considered unaccounted cash receipts in the hands of the assessee and out of the same, Rs. 1,85,68,000/- was brought to tax for the impugned assessment year i.e., AY. 2011-12. 3. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), wherein the notices were issued on various occasions, however, the assessee did not respond to the said notices and also failed to file any written submissions. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution, stating that the assessee has not filed any submissions even after allowing sufficient opportunities. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted an adjournment letter dt. 11-03-2026, wherein it was submitted that due to personal exigency in the family, the matter may be adjourned, however, nothing has been specified or stated before us about exact nature of personal exigency, in absence of which, the adjournment request is declined. 5. Given the fact that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution and there is no finding on the merits of the case by Printed from counselvise.com 3 IT(SS)A No. 9300/Mum/2025 the Ld.CIT(A) and also the fact that similar additions were made in other assessment years and the status of those matters are also not borne out from the records, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the matter and is at liberty to file necessary explanation / documentation as so advised. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-03-2026 Sd/- Sd/- [MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 23-03-2026 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "