IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Parshwa Investment Deputy Commissioner of B-602, Klassic Gold Hotel, Off CG Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1)

Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Vs. Room No. 803, 8^th Floor, Gujrat- 380009 Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe, M.K.Road, Mumbai, Mumbai- 400020 PAN NO. AATFP 4387 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya Mr. Tushar Nagori Revenue by : Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/06/2025

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated

31.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai [in short „the Ld. CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer of issuing notice dated 31.03.2022 under section 148 in violation of provisions of section 151A of the Act as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technlogies Limited vs. ACIT [WP No.

1778/2023; order dated 03.05.2024].

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing the sanction note of the Learned Pr. CIT-, Ahmedabad thereby violating the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs.

ACIT [WP No. 546/2022; order dated 15.02.2022].

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating the assessment u/s 147 by obtaining a mere mechanical sanction u/s 151 and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeals) has passed the Order dated 31.12.2024 in gross violation of the principle of Natural Justice without giving proper opportunity of being heard.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeals), Mumbai has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 71,52,27,967/- being unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits under section 68, merely on surmises and conjectures, even after providing all requisite explanations and evidences to substantiate the genuineness of the loans availed and repaid.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeals), Mumbai has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,90,68,140/- being interest charged on unsecured loans under section 69C, merely on surmises and conjectures, even after providing all requisite explanations and evidences to substantiate the genuineness of the loans availed and repaid.

7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2. Before us, Ld. counsel for the assessee filed an application vide letter dated 11.06.2025 for admission of additional ground. The relevant additional ground duly signed by the partner of the assessee firm is reproduced as under :

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. A.O. u/s 147 of the Act as bad-in-law, disregarding that the jurisdiction of the impugned assessment was within the purview of section 153C of the Act, beginning with non-obstante clause and over-riding section 147 of the Act, as 'information', which formed the basis of reopening the impugned assessment, relating to or pertaining to the appellant was found and seized during the course of search on One World Group on 06.11.2019, which is prior to 01.04.2021.”

3. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of admissibility of the additional g