IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI“SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER (AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

(AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre[in short, ‘CIT(A), NFAC’], Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

3. Since all the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take up ITA No. 5020/Mum/2025, A.Y 2016-17 as lead case and facts narrated therein.

ITA No. 5020/Mum/2025, A.Y 2016-17 The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“ITA No. 5020/MUM/2025

1. (a) The order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2023 and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Ld. Income Tax Officer- 22(1)(1), Mumbai without providing material are invalid, non-est and bad in law (b) The notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 is time barred as it is beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year.

(c) The assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 13.03.2024 is invalid, non-est and bad in law.

2. (a). The Ld. NFAC erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,47,200/-, being the amount of cash deposited in Canara Bank and ICICI bank u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant.

(b). The Ld. NFAC erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,47,200/-, being the amount of cash deposited in Canara Bank and ICICI bank u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the case was reopened on the basis of non-existent reason and addition made on other ground as opposed to reopening.

3. All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete and modify the above grounds of appeal.

ITA No. 5019/MUM/2025

1. (a) The order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 dated 20.04.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 20.04.2022 issued by the Ld. Income Tax Officer-22(1)(1), Mumbaj are invalid, non-est and bad in law (b) The notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 20.04.2022 issued is beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year is time barred.

(c) The assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 13.03.2024 is invalid, non-est and bad in law

2. The Ld. NFAC erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,06,200/-, being the amount of cash deposited in Canara Bank and ICICI bank u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant.

3. All the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete and modify the above grounds of appeal.”

4. Ground No. 1 (a) to (c) raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of assessment passed by AO u/s 148A(d) of the Act. Therefore we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the case of the assessee was reopened by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) based on the information that during the year under consideration, the assessee had involved in cash transa