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

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 4361/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Gupta Builders and Developers, A C I T , C C - 4 ( 3 ) , 1201 & 1202, Bhumiraj Costarica, Room No. 1921, 19^th Floor, Plot No. 1 & 2, Near Moraj Circle, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs.

Sector-18, Sanpada, Mumbai-400021.

Navi Mumbai-400705.

PAN: AAJFG3066H Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Advocate Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 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)-52, Mumbai [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 08.10.2024 for Assessment Year (AY)

2015-16. The assessee has raised the following the grounds of appeal:

“1. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law in treating the impugned

assessment order as valid since the notice dated 31/03/2021 u/s. 148 was

digitally signed on the same date ignoring the fact that the notice was issued and served only on 01/04/2021 through email and thus, the AO was required undertake the subsequent proceedings u/s. 148A as per the order of Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC). The CIT(A) failed to deal with the decisions filed by the Appellant in support of its contention.

2. BECAUSE, the approval of PCIT (Central), Mumbai-2 u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid as it is not the competent authority as per section 151 of the Act.

Without Prejudice, 3. BECAUSE, the impugned assessment order is bad in law since the reasons for reopening of assessment are recorded solely on "suspicion" without bringing on record any tangible material.

4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred upholding that the reopening of the assessment was not based on "borrowed satisfaction," despite the fact that the AO has merely relied on the information provided by the survey party without conducting any independent verification, applying due diligence, or making preliminary inquiries.

5. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law by upholding that the AO is not required to establish any failure on the part of the Appellant, in a case where the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act.

6. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law by upholding that the approval u/s. 151 is valid and not mechanically on the erroneous ground that the Appellant failed to provide evidence to the contrary, while also disregarding the judgments submitted by the Appellant in support.

7. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the loan from Granth Exim Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.98,00,000/-as unexplained u/s. 68 and disallowing interest of Rs.3,49,677/- on erroneous ground that the Appellant has failed to discharge its initial onus ignoring the plethora of documents filed by the Appellant to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the loan transaction.”

2. The assessee is a partnership firm and filed the return of income for AY 2015-16 on 28.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 26,68,670/-. A survey was conducted under section 133A on 26.11.2019 in the case of M/s Greenscape Developers Group and M/s Proviso Builders & Developers Group. From the survey operations it is noticed that the assessee has taken loan to the tune of Rs. 98,00,000/- from one M/s Granth Exim Pvt. Ltd. which as per survey report was found to be a bogus party. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment vide notice dated 31.03.2021 under section 148 of the Act. After perusal of details furnished by the assessee, the AO treated the loan as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. The AO also disallowed the interest to the tune of Rs. 3,49,677/- on said loan. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before the CIT(A) the ass