IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1775/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Truform Techno Products Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle – 2(1)(1), H. No.151, S.No.7/3, Aayakar Bhawan, At Kawtha, Vs.

Race Course Circle, Tah Kamptee, Vadodara – 390 007 Nagpur – 441 002 (Gujarat). (Maharashtra)

[ PAN – AAACT 8617 M]

C.O. No.42/Ahd/2025 (In ITA No.1775/Ahd/2024)

Assessment Year: 2009-10 Truform Techno Products Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, H. No.151, S.No.7/3, Circle – 2(1)(1), AT Kawathat, Room No.403, Tah Kamptee, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Nagpur – 441 002 4^th Floor, (Maharashtra) Race Course Circle, [PAN – AAACT 8617 M] Vadodara – 390 007 (Gujarat).

ITA No.1776/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals in ITA Nos.1775 & 1776/Ahd/2024 are filed by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 14.08.2024 and 19.08.2024 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2009-10 & 12-13 respectively. The Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2025 is filed by the assessee in Appeal No.1775/Ahd/2024 for the A.Y. 2009-10. As the facts involved in these appeals and cross objection were identical, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No.1775/Ahd/2024 & C.O.

No.42/Ahd/2025 for the A.Y. 2009-10.

3. The grounds taken by the Revenue and the assessee in this appeal and the cross objection are as under:-

ITA No.1775/Ahd/2024 – A.Y. 2009-10 “(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITA)

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,99,50,000/- made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the alleged investors with documentary evidences.

(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,99,50,000/- made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without considering the provisions of Section 78(2)

of the Companies Act.

(iii) The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of, or before, the hearing of appeal.”

C.O. No.42/Ahd/2025 – A.Y. 2009-10 On Legality of the Order:

1. It is submitted that the Show Cause Notice u/s.148 dated 30-03-2016 for A.Y.2009-10 is beyond limitation and time barred and therefore the proceedings initiated u/s.147 are invalid and against principles of Law, 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in fact in upholding Reopening of Assessment u/s.147 as well as issue of notice which is non- compliance of procedure laid down before issue of Show Cause Notice u/s.148.

3. It is further submitted that Reasons Recorded by the AO are general and does not show his independent application of mind to justify initiating proceedings u/s.148 void Pr. CIT(A) has failed to satisfy.

4. The proceedings & permission before Pr. CIT and void since he has failed to satisfy himself about applicability of sec. 151 and provisions of Act and his not signing the documents personally and not putting the date on Documents goes against the root of necessary formalities required as per Law and therefore it is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)

ought to have held that the Reopening is bad in Law and Void.

5. Your Appellant further submits that as per copy of Asst. Order in response to filing Return of Income on 19-09-2009 no Assessment Order is passed.

Further it also appears from Asst. Order that though in Response to Notice u/s.148 Return of Income was not filed the AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) and if it relates to ROI filed on 19-09-2009 it is belated making Reasons void & infective and in the circumstance Asst. Order u/s.143(3)

is void On Merits (a) Without prejudice