| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5020/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 1993-94 Growmore Research and Assets DCIT, Central Circle – 4(3), Mumbai Management Ltd. Vs

32, Madhuli Dr. Annie Beasant Road Worli Mumbai - 400018 [PAN: AAACG4936C]

अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A. & Shri Tarang Mehta- Advocate Revenue by : Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) – 52, Mumbai, dated 30/07/2024 pertaining to AY

1993-94.

2. The grievance of the assessee read as under:-

“1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax sum of Rs. 82,37,284/-as income on account of dividend and interest.

2. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer as 'business income' in respect of gain aggregating to Rs. 1,98,99,186/- arising on sale of shares of Grasim Industries and Ambuja Cement instead of taxing the same as 'Capital Gains'.

3. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 16,56,000/- in respect of alleged profit on sale of shares of Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to levy interest u/s.

234A and 234B of the Act.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have failed to appreciate that the appellant could not pay tax due to legal impossibility arising out operation of law.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not entertaining the additional grounds filed by the appellant challenging the following :

a) Addition of Rs. 13,77,00,000/- on account of interest accrued on 17%

NTPC Bonds.

b) Addition of Rs. 65,00,000/- on account of interest accrued on 13% NLC Bonds c) Not granting deduction in respect of interest expenditure of Rs.

13,61,09,436/-

d) Levy of interest u/s. 234A and 234B without appreciating that TDS was deductible in respect of certain income.

7. The order passed by the Assessing Officer is as not as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and illegal and bad in law.

8. The order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act.

9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”

3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing Ground Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9. Therefore, all these grounds are dismissed as not pressed.

4. The surviving grounds read as under:-

“2. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer as 'business income' in respect of gain aggregating to Rs. 1,98,99,186/- arising on sale of shares of Grasim Industries and Ambuja Cement instead of taxing the same as 'Capital Gains'.

3. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 16,56,000/- in respect of alleged profit on sale of shares of Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd.”

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the original assessment in the first round was framed u/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 19/03/1996. The assessment was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) order dated 28/02/2001, decided the issues and remitted the matter back to the files of the AO. Subsequent to the order of the ld.

CIT(A) giving effect was passed on 20/07/2001.

6. In the second round, the ld. CIT(A) framed order on 20/05/2