IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5456/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13)

Vama International v/s. Assistant Commissioner of

3601, Era 1 Marathon Next बनाम Income Tax–22(3), Gen, Ganapat Rao Kadam Dr. SS Rao Marg, Parel, Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400012, Mumbai – 400 013, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAEFV7881 Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Dharan Gandhi,AR Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

11.07.2025 is filed by the assessee 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 assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 15.12.2019 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

As regards validity of reassessment proceedings:

1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act').

2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating reassessment proceedings without appreciating the fact that no income of the appellant chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. There was no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

3. The learned AO erred in reopening the assessment for the second time without having any fresh material based on which he had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment.

4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the leaned AO failed to appreciate the fact that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of change of opinion or reappraisal of existing documents.

5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned AO in reopening the assessment merely to make additions in relation to alleged non-genuine purchases @100% having already additions for the same @ 12.5% during the first reassessment proceeding which is nothing but change of opinion.

As regards addition of Rs. 5,77,65,083 as alleged non-genuine purchases 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO amounting to Rs. 5,77,65,083 as alleged unproved /non-genuine purchases.

7. The learned Assessing officer erred in not considering Honorable Mumbai ITAT's order in appellants own case during the first reassessment proceeding wherein the Honorable ITAT had deleted the additions made for the same alleged purchases.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the relevant assessment year declaring total income at Rs. 45,58,688/-which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. No regular scrutiny assessment was done. However, the case was selected for scrutiny u/s 147 of the Act in consequence of the search and survey action was conducted in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and others on 03/10/2013 by DGIT(lnv.), Mumbai wherein itwas concluded that the assessee had taken bogus accommodation entries of purchases of Rs.5,77,55,683/- from certain parties. Based on the above said information, the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29.02.2016 assessing total income at Rs 1,17,79,3231/- after disallowing the bogus accommodation purchases at 12.5%. The assessee preferred the CIT(A) against the said assessment order who confirmed the addition. The assessee agitated the issue before the ITAT which vide its order dated 15.02.2018 has deleted the said addition stating that the assessee had furnished all necessary evidence to prove the genuineness of the said purchases. The case