Dismissed¶30

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3 v. Dilip B Jiwarajka

Bombay HC10 Apr 2026ITXA/575/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Dilip B. Jiwarajka; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 Mumbai; Income Tax Appeal Nos. 563 and 575 of 2024; Bombay High Court Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Section 260A Income Tax Act; Section 153A search assessment; assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16; incriminating material found during search; P.R. Metrani v CIT (2006) 287 ITR 209; substantial question of law; ITAT “D” Bench Mumbai order dated 29.11.2022; co-ordinate Bench ITA No. 646 of 2023 order dated 15.04.2026; ITA No. 211 of 2024 Surendra B. Jiwarjka dismissed 12.11.2025; Revenue appeal dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; appeals dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶30

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3 vs Dilip B Jiwarajka — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the ITAT erred in stating that there is no incriminating material, ignoring that information collected during the course of search — identification of entities indulging in dubious transactions and statements of persons involved in such transactions — constitutes incriminating material as it was found during the search. +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The present appeals do not give rise to any substantial question of law and accordingly stand dismissed, in terms of the order dated 15 April 2026 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 646 of 2023; no order as to costs.

¶30

Key takeaways

Since the issues in the present appeals are identical to those dealt with by the co-ordinate Bench, the Court was of the clear opinion that these appeals ought to be disposed of in terms of the co-ordinate Bench's order dated 15 April 2026.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC (OOCJ), ITA Nos. 563 & 575 of 2024 (G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe JJ., 17.04.2026): Revenue appeals under S.260A Income Tax Act against the common ITAT (“D” Bench, Mumbai) order dated 29.11.2022 (assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15) arising from S.153A search assessments on assessee Dilip B. Jiwarajka; the proposed questions of law concerned the alleged absence of “incriminating material” and alleged disregard of P.R. Metrani v CIT (2006) 287 ITR 209. Noting that counsel were “ad idem” that a co-ordinate Bench had already dismissed the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 646 of 2023, order dated 15.04.2026) against the very same ITAT order for A.Y. 2013-14 — which order itself followed this Court's 12.11.2025 dismissal of ITA No. 211 of 2024 (Surendra B. Jiwarjka, the assessee's brother) on concurrently recorded factual findings — the Court held the present appeals raise no substantial question of law and dismissed them in terms of the co-ordinate Bench's order, with no order as to costs.

¶1

3-ITXA [email protected]

¶2

PRAJAKTASAGARVARTAK Digitallysigned byPRAJAKTASAGARVARTAKDate:2026.04.1817:41:23+0530 Prajakta Vartak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2024 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2024

¶5

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, Mumbai ...Appellant Vs. Dilip B. Jiwarajka ...Respondent

¶6

Ms. Swapna Gokhale for the Appellant. Mr. Rajendra for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 17 APRIL 2026.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act are filed by the Revenue, assailing the judgment and order dated 29 November 2022 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Mumbai. The assessment years in question in the present appeals are A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2014-15.

¶10

The following questions of law have been raised for consideration of the Court:-

¶11

“A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in stating that there is no incriminating material ignoring the fact that the information collected during the course of search resulting in identification of certain entities which have indulged in dubious transactions and statements of persons involved in such transactions constitutes incriminating material as it was found during the course of search?"

¶12

B. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Metrani v CIT(2006) 287 ITR 209 wherein it was explained that the books of accounts, documents, money,

¶13

Page 1 of 3 17 April 2026

¶14

3-ITXA [email protected]

¶15

bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statements recorded of the persons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the Act thereby such evidence constitutes as incriminating material.”

¶16

We find from the record that the impugned order is a common order pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had dealt with the case of the assessee in Income Tax Appeal No. 646 of 2023, filed by the Revenue, assailing the very same order. By the said order, the

¶17

co-ordinate Bench dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in the following terms :-

¶18

“1. The above Income Tax Appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 29th November 2022, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”) in Appeal No. 2326/Mum/2021. The Assessment Year in question is A.Y. 2013-2014. According to the Revenue, the above Appeal gives rise to the following two substantial questions of law:-

¶19

“A. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in stating that there is no incriminating material ignoring the fact that the information collected during the course of search resulting in identification of certain entities which have indulged in dubious transactions and statements of persons involved in such transactions constitutes incriminating material as it was found during the course of search?”

¶20

B. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Metrani v CIT(2006) 287 ITR 209 wherein it was explained that the books of accounts, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statements recorded of the persons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the Act thereby such evidence constitutes as incriminating material.”

¶21

In the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer has made a huge addition to the income of the Respondent. This was challenged before the CIT (Appeals), who deleted the addition, and the same has been upheld by the ITAT.

¶22

Interestingly, the Respondent Assessee, as well as his brother Mr. Surendra B. Jiwarjka, were subjected to search and the Assessment Order in both these cases has been passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶23

Page 2 of 3 17 April 2026

¶24

3-ITXA [email protected]

¶25

The present Respondent’s brother, namely Surendra B. Jiwarjka, being aggrieved by the Assessment Order passed under Section 153A, approached CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) decided the matter in favour of the Respondent’s brother. Being aggrieved by this, the Department preferred an Appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT also held in favour of the Respondent’s brother. Not being satisfied by the order passed by the ITAT, the Department then approached this Court by filing Income Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2024. This Court dismissed the aforesaid Appeal (filed in the case of the brother of the Respondent) on the ground that it raised no substantial question of law. In fact, this Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT have, on a concurrent review of the factual material on record, held in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The findings of the fact have been concurrently recorded, and they are not based on “no evidence or on any relevant evidence having been excluded from consideration”. Hence, this Court in the case of Surendra B. Jiwarjka (the brother of the Respondent) held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶26

It is an admitted position before us that the facts in the present case are identical to those in the case of Surendra B. Jiwarjka, save and except for the amount of addition being made.

¶27

Once this is the case, for the reasons stated by this Court in its decision dated 12th November 2025 in Income Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2024, we also hold that the present Appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law, and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.”

¶29

The issue in the present appeals being identical, we are of the clear opinion

¶30

that these appeals ought to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 15 April 2026 (supra), passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the present appeals also stand dismissed in terms of the said order as they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. No costs.

¶31

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶32

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶33

Page 3 of 3 17 April 2026

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common judgment and order dated 29 November 2022 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai, covering Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, assailed by the Revenue under Section 260A; per the co-ordinate Bench order reproduced herein, the Assessing Officer's additions were deleted by CIT (Appeals) and the deletion was upheld by the ITAT.¶9
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai · 29 November 2022
Prior proceeding
The Respondent assessee and his brother Mr. Surendra B. Jiwarjka were subjected to search; assessment orders in both cases were passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.¶22
Prior proceeding
As narrated in the co-ordinate Bench order (ITA No. 646 of 2023, A.Y. 2013-14): the Assessing Officer made a large addition to the Respondent's income; CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition and the ITAT upheld the deletion.¶21
Prior proceeding
Counsel were 'ad idem' that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Income Tax Appeal No. 646 of 2023 (Revenue's appeal against the same ITAT order, A.Y. 2013-14), had dismissed the appeal holding it raised no substantial question of law; that order is dated 15 April 2026 (¶30).¶16
Prior proceeding
The Respondent's brother Surendra B. Jiwarjka, aggrieved by his Section 153A assessment order, approached CIT (Appeals).¶25
Prior proceeding
CIT (Appeals) decided in favour of the brother; the Department's appeal to the ITAT also failed, and the Department then approached this Court by filing Income Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2024.¶25
Prior proceeding
The ITAT held in favour of the brother; the Department then filed ITA No. 211 of 2024 in this Court.¶25
Prior proceeding
This Court dismissed ITA No. 211 of 2024 (Surendra B. Jiwarjka) on the ground that it raised no substantial question of law, having found concurrent factual findings in favour of the assessee; decision dated 12 November 2025 (date stated in the quoted co-ordinate Bench order, ¶27).¶25

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3 v. Dilip B Jiwarajka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3 v. Dilip B Jiwarajka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Idfc First Bank Limited vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Ms High Performance Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner, Appeals-Ii

Ms High Performance Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. vs the Additinal Commissioner Appeals II

Nivara Infradevelopers LLP vs Union of India

Matrix Cellular International Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Shree Govind Traders (Prop. Bhagwandas Jindal) vs the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and Ors.