Under Section 124(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, an assessee is precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer if they have participated in the assessment proceedings without raising such objection within 30 days of receiving a notice under Section 142(1).

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The above captioned appeal in ITA 4623/MUM/2023 is preferred by the assessee and ITA 4771/MUM/2023 is cross appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment orders passed u/s. 143(1)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18.Since the issues are interlinked and also the fact that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity.

2. The grounds of both the appeals are as under:-

ITA No.4623/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18)

1. That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as well as the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and have been passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case, therefore liable to be annulled.

2. That the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is further illegal because of being passed without having a valid jurisdiction over the case of the assessee company.

3. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making additions and Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding additions of Rs. 1,61,98,774/- to the income of the assessee company only on surmises, presumptions and conjectures.

4. That the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in charging commission on failed banking transactions of Rs. 1,56,70,750/-.

5. That the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in presuming and assessing commission income from transactions within group companies.

6. That the rate of commission being 3% adopted by Ld. CIT(A) in the case of assessee is excessive and unreasonable.

7. That the invoking of provisions of Sec. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act for levy of tax at higher rate on commission income is not tenable under the law.

ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. That the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act on 22/09/2019 being issued without complying to the CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 and without mentioning type of scrutiny under which the case of the assessee has been selected is not valid as per provisions of Act.

2. That the assessment order dated 30/12/2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is not tenable under the law because of being passed after the assessee company was struck off by Registrar of Companies on 28/07/2017.

3. That the ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in levying higher rates of taxes as per provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act which were specified by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016.

3. In this connection, it may be stated here at the outset that during the course of hearing before the Bench, the ld.AR did not want to press the ground nos. 1 and 2 pertaining to the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Consequently, the additional ground no.1 and 2 stand dismissed. Further, ground no .3 is already filed in original grounds of appeal no.7 above and would be adjudicated separately.

4. Facts of the case as borne from the records show that assessee disclosed Nil income in the return filed. Its case was selected to examine the assessee for investment/ advances/loans and for verification of transaction as also the cash deposits made during the demonetization period in Bank. Enquiries were made u/s. 133(6) of the Act with Axi