IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2393/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres vs Income-tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [PAN: AAGCB1604E]

Appellant Respondent Present for:

Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar and Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), dated 26.10.2023 passed against the assessment order by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 28.06.2019 for AY 2017-18.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the Order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144A dated 28th June, 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the merits of the case.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in confirming the additions in respect of PAN AAGCB1604E which pertains to a non-existent entity. Therefore, any proceedings on Non-Existent PAN are void ab initio and therefore bad in law.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in passing an order without considering the facts available on record and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has passed impugned Order u/s. 250 of the Act on 26th October, 2023 in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned Order is bad in law.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in confirming addition towards cash deposit in bank account of Rs.3,18,43,590/- as unexplained credit u/s.69A of the Act.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in confirming the addition u/s.69A of the Act when the conditions prescribed u/s. 69A have not been fulfilled.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.31,64,997/- being estimated income of

8% against total credits in bank account of Rs.3,95,62,466/-.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC has erred in making additions without considering the fact that the transaction in the Federal Bank Vashi Branch bearing Account No. 13690200027434 are in fact account of Mr. Rohit Rajgopal Soman (Proprietor of M/s. Bombay Tyres) having PAN AYSPS1288G and the said transactions have been duly recorded in his books of account, subject to audit u/s.44AB of the Act as well as offered for tax in his return of income file for the AY 2017-18.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the NFAC erred in confirming the additions in respect of transactions in Federal Bank Vashi Branch bearing Account No. 13690200027434 when the transactions in the said bank account have already been assessed to tax in the hands of Mr.Rohit Rajgopal Soman (PAN - AYSPS1288G).

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the order u/s.250 r.w.s 147 dated 30th January, 2025 (Served on 4th March, 2025) has been passed by the Assessing Officer beyond the time limit prescribed to pass the said Order and therefore the aforesaid order is time barred and invalid.

2.1. The sole issue involved in the present appeal through ten grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is in respect of addition made on account of deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee, whereby it is alleged that o