IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

I.T.A. No. 6566/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Narendra Khimji Savla Vs. Income Tax Officer

34, Uma Building, Opp. Ward 6(1)(1)

Kirti College, Kashinath Aayakar Bhavan, Dhuru Road, Dadar – Maharshi Karve 400028. Road, Churchgate –

PAN: AHEPS9345P 400020.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Respondent by Shri. Sajit Nair SR. DR. Date of Hearing 11/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 30/11/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year

2011-12 on following grounds of appeal :

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of initiating reassessment proceeding under section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of passing assessment order without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Tax Act, 1961.

Income

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in confirming the action of Ld AO that reassessment order cannot be passed without providing reasons recorded for reopening.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A)

erred in not adjudicating the issue where the Ld AO has made addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of borrowing cash loan without providing any material which was relied by the Ld AO.

5. Without Prejudice to Ground No 4, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue where the Ld AO failed to consider that borrowing of loan does not fall in the definition of Income and thus it cannot be added to the total income of the appellant

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in not adjudicating the issue where the Ld AO has made addition merely based on the information provided by DDIT (Inv), Unit 5 (4). However, as per the information the name of borrower is mentioned as Asoj Soft Caps which is altogether a different assessee.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in not adjudicating the issue where the Ld AO has passed an assessment order on PAN No. DQGPS6936E (for which the appellant has already filed an application for cancellation) as against the PAN No. AHEPS9345P which is regularly used by the appellant.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in not adjudicating the issue where the Ld AO has 7 erred in not giving credit of taxes paid on PAN No AHEPS9345P especially when the income offered of such PAN was added to reassessment proceedings.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A)

erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of passing 8 assessment order and making addition without mentioning any R provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which itself makes the assessment bad in law”

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of initiating penalty provision under section 271(1)(c) without considering the fact, that on cash loan provisions of section 269SS are applicable and not the provisions of 271(1)(c).

11. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend on alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2. The Assessee is an individual and had not furnished regular return of income. Subsequently, based on information received from investigation wing, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 31/03/2018. From the assessment order it is noted that, notices were served through post as well as mail. However, there was no response, the Ld.AO further records in the assessment order that, the assessee responded to the notice u/s.

142(1) of dated 09/11/2018 by filing a letter dat