IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 6567/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Narendra Khimji Savla, ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), 34, Uma Building, Opp. Kirti College, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Kashinath Dhuru Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

Dadar, Mumbai-400028.

PAN: AHEPS9345P Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short 'CIT(A)'] dated 13.11.2024 for AY 2012-13. The assessee raised the 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 Income Tax Act, 1961.

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. 16,00,000/- as unexplained Money u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of borrowing cash loan without providing any material which was relied by the Ld AO and even failed to consider that provisions of sections 69A is not applicable when no books of accounts are maintained.

5. Without Prejudice to Ground No 4, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not 5 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 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.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of estimating interest of Rs. 1,92,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of R the Income Tax Act being 1% per month on the value of loan amount of Rs. 16,00,000/-

8. 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).”

2. The assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from DDIT (Inv.) in respect of the assessee regarding a loan borrowed by the assessee from M/s Evergreen Enterprises to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was carried out in the case of M/s Evergreen Enterprises during which time it was found that M/s Evergreen Enterprises is involved in providing accommodation entries for unaccounted cash. The AO accordingly issued a notice under section 148 of the Act reopening the assessment. The AO issued notices calling for details from the assessee in the regard. The assessee in response to notice under section 148 filed a letter saying that the PAN i.e. DQGPS6936E under which the AO has issued the notice have been surrendered by the assessee and a cancellation request has already been filed. The assessee further submitted that the actual PAN of the assessee is AHEPS9345P and that the assessee has been regularly filing the return under the said PAN. The assessee also submi