IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRINARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4707/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2012-13)

DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7^th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 PAN: AAFPS1306Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. No.208/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.4707/Mum/2024)

(Assessment year: 2012-13)

Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah vs DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Room 732, 7^th Floor, Residency, Shankar Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 051

067 PAN: AAFPS1306Q CROSS OBJECOR RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi - CA Respondent by : Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh Sr.AR Date of hearing : 09/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/04/2025

O R D E R

Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM) :

The instant appeal of the revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’]passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2012-13, date of order 18/07/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 33(1), Mumbai (in short, the Ld. AO) passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, date of order 18/12/2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a search was conducted under section 132 of the Act in the case of M/s Ameya group of Virar on 31/07/2014. During the course of search proceedings, the documents were seized and certain discrepancies were found pertaining to assessee. After that an information was received from the office of the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv)-IV(1), Thane and on that basis the Ld.AO has reopened he assessee’s case under section 147 of the Act for escaped assessment. After recording of satisfaction, the notice was issued and finally, the assessment was completed relied on the incriminating documents and the addition made amount to Rs.1,37,43,500/- under section 69A based on the seized MOU with Ameya group, addition was made of Rs.1,19,40,900/- on the basis of the seized documents, addition of Rs.25 lakhs on account of cash loan to Ameya group under section 69A and interest on loan amount to Rs. 6,60,000/- under section 69A was added back with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.

CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the appeal of the assessee both on legal and on merit. The legal issue related the jurisdiction of the Ld.AO for assessment under section 148 or section 153C of the Actwas duly dismissed. But related to merit, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed appeal, and the assessee filed the cross objection before us.

3. The Ld.AR first argued the cross objection related to challenging of jurisdiction for assessment under section 148 of the Act. The Ld.AR first invited our attention to assessment order paragrapg 4 which is reproduced as below:-

“4. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s Ameya Group of Virar on 312.7.2014. During the course of search action, certain documents were seized. On perusal of the seized documents, it was noted that the assessee has entered into certain cash transactions with Ameya Group which are discussed as under:-

4. The Ld. AR submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO relied upon documents seized in the course of a search and seizure action conducted on the Ameya Group of Virar on 31.07.2014. The addition made by the Ld. AO was based on these incriminating documents discovered during the said search. Accordingly, the assessee is to be treated as an “other person” in terms of the search proceedings.

It was further contended that the reasse