IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y Applicant Respondent 3347/Mum/2023 2016-17 M/s Index Logistics Pvt ACIT, CC-1(2)

3346/Mum/2023 2017-18 Ltd, Room No. 906, 9^th 3362/Mum/2023 2018-19 105, Ascot Centre, Floor, Pratishta

3361/Mum/2023 2019-20 Sahara Airport Road, Bhavan

3360/Mum/2023 2020-21 Andheri (E), Mumbai MK Road, Mumbai PAN - AABCI3631H

4267/Mum/2023 2011-12 Ismail Muhammed Khan ACIT, CC-1(2)

4273/Mum/2023 2016-17 H. No. 53, "C" Wing, Rustamji Room No. 906, 9^th Central Park, Chakala, 4272/Mum/2023 2017-18 Floor, Pratishta Andheri (East), Mumbai, 4289/Mum/2023 2018-19 Bhavan Maharashtra-400093.

4288/Mum/2023 2019-20 MK Road, Mumbai PAN - ADQPK3620B

4286/Mum/2023 2020-21 Assessee by Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue by Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH:

The present appeals have been filed by the different assessees challenging the different impugned orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai.

for the A.Ys 2011-12, 2017-18 to 2020-21.

Since all the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take ITA No. 3361/Mum/2023, A.Y 2019-20 as lead case and facts narrated therein.

ITA No. 3361/Mum/2023, A.Y 2019-20 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld.CIT(A)"] erred in passing the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai/10291/2018-19 dismissing the appeal filed by Appellant and confirming the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "AO"] under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"], whereby the total income of the Appellant was assessed at ₹42,19,34,450 as against the total income of ₹12,21,38,550 declared by the Appellant in its return of income.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai/10291/2018-19 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the AO, because the assessment order is barred by limitation and is therefore invalid and non est.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai/10291/2018-19 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of ₹12,37,17,677 made by the AO on account of suppressed business income, because the impugned addition has been confirmed without proper and independent application of mind and without appreciating that the addition had been made on mere surmises and conjectures without rebutting the explanation given by the Appellant and without realizing that the impugned addition results in astronomical profit rate not commensurate with the industry.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai/10291/2018-19 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of ₹37,73,848 made by the AO under section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on account of unexplained expenses/payments to M/s. Transx, because the impugned addition has been confirmed on the basis of incorrect assumptions and even when the provisions of sections 69C and 115BBE are not applicable in the case.

5. That on the facts and in th