आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद (cid:8)यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.985, 986, 987 and 999/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2016-17 JP Marketing Mehsana Vs. The ITO, Ward-1

271, GIDC Phase-II Mehsana.

G-29, Poojan Complex Modhera Road Mehsana 384 002 PAN : AADFJ 1842 J (Applicant) (Responent)

Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divetia, and Shri Samir Vora,Ars.

Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR सुनवाई क(cid:9) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/12/2024 घोषणा क(cid:9) तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The above four appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the above four assessment years.

2. It was common ground that the issue involved in all these appeals was the same, and therefore, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing, and adjudicated accordingly by this consolidated order.

3. At the outset itself, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the present appeals arose from the order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in appeals filed against the orders passed on the assessee in re- assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the reasons for reopening the case of all the four years of the assessee was identical, being that, the assessee had allegedly taken accommodation entries from the concerns Orange Tradex P. Ltd. (“OTPL” for short) and Krish Enterprise (“KE” for short). The amounts pertaining to the same being different in all the years. The AO being in possession of this information, had accordingly, reopened the case of the assessee and made addition of the same to the income of the assessee.

4. Solitary contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before us was that it was repeatedly pointed out both to the AO and the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee, a partnership firm was not in existence in the impugned year, and it had dissolved much earlier, and its business had been taken over by one of the partners, who was running it as a proprietary concern; the partner being, Bharat Chaturbhai Patel (“BCP” for short); that all these transactions were accounted for in the business of the proprietor and since the assessee firm was not in existence, there is no question of making any assessment, and for that matter, any addition in the name of the assessee firm. His contention was that all evidences in this regard of viz. original partnership deed, subsequent dissolution deed were filed to the authority below; that ITR and balance sheet of the proprietor of JP Marketing, Shri “BCP” had also been filed evidencing the fact that the JP Marketing was being run in a proprietary firm in the impugned years, and the assessee firm of the same name was no longer in existence and was not carrying out any transaction. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended before us that several grounds had been raised, but effective ground of appeal raising the above grievance, which were raised in ground no.3.1 to 3.3 as under:

“3.1 The NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in holding that M/s J P Marketing (firm) had not ceased to exist on and from 24.11.2010 and it had not become a proprietary concern of Shri Bharat C. Patel, so that the impugned transactions with M/s Orange Tradex Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.

20,93,76,722/- were made by the partnership firm.

3.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the NFAC ought not to have held that M/s J P Marketing (firm) had not ceased to exist on and from 24.11.2010 and it had not become a proprietary concern of Shri Bharat C. Patel, so that the impugned transactions with M/s Orange Tradex Pvt. Ltd. of