IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3290/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12)

M/s Real Time Consultants v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward –

Pvt. Ltd.

बनाम

15(3)(1), Room No. 456, 4th Office No. 201, 2^nd Floor, A-2 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Wing, Kailas Complex, Road, Mumbai – 400020, Bhandup (West), Mumbai Maharashtra

400078, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAFCR0109P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Rushabh Mehta,AR Respondent by : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad,(CIT DR)

Date of Hearing 18.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai[hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act “] dated 28.12.2016 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)

has erred in sustaining the actions of the Assessing Officer of initiating reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of a statement of one alleged entry operator Sh. Jagdish Purohit, despite the fact that he had already retracted from the said statement before the date of recording of reasons by the Assessing officer.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)

has erred in sustaining the actions of the Assessing Officer of initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that original assessment had already been framed under section 143(3) of the Act and reassessment proceedings initiated were on a mere change of opinion and should be quashed, as such relying on the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561 (SC).

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)

has erred in sustaining the actions of the Assessing Officer of disregarding the fact that when original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 13.03.2014 and the issue under consideration was examined categorically by the Assessing Officer, the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad in law as there is no failure to disclose fully and truly any material facts necessary for assessment.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)

has erred in sustaining the actions of the Assessing Officer of initiating the assessment merely on conjectures and surmises solely on the basis of information received from the investigation wing without any application of mind on the information so received.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)

has erred in sustaining the actions of the Assessing Officer of initiating reassessment proceedingsfor making a ‘fishing or roving inquiry’ without proper reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)

has erred in sustaining the actions of the Assessing Officer of reopening the assessment for the reason that the appellant was one of the beneficiary who had taken accommodation entry in the form of security premium amounting to Rs. 68,82,69,800/- and not doubting the amount of share capital of Rs 2,14,52,200/- thereby vaguely concluding that a part of the transaction was genuine and the remaining part of the same transaction was not.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)

has erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer merely based on a statement of one alleged entry operator Sh. Jagdish Purohit, despite the fact that he had retracted from the statement and had categorically denied providing any such entry to the appellant during his cross examination in pursuance to summon u/s 131