IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent M/s.Growmore Research DCIT, CC-4(1), and Assets Management (Erstwhile ACIT, Limited, CC-31)

453/Mum/2023 1992-93 32, Madhuli Apartment, 19^th Floor, 3rd Floor, Air India Building, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Nariman Point Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACG4936C M/s.Growmore Research DCIT, CC-4(3), and Assets Management Central Range-4, Limited, 1125/Mum/2023 1992-93 19th Floor, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Air India Building, 3rd Floor, Nariman Point Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACG4936C For Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmesh Shah For Revenue : Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel Date of Hearing : 25-10-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21-01-2025

O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :

These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 09-01-2023 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-52, Mumbai [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and they relate to the Assessment Year (AY.)1992-93.

2. The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. This is second round of proceedings. The assessee company belongs to Harshad Mehta Group and is a notified entity under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 due to stock market scam. The assessee company was promoted by Shri Harshad S Mehta and Shri Ashwin S Mehta. It is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares and securities. Due to the problems faced by the group on account of outburst of the scam, the assessee company could not file return of income for the year under consideration. Hence, the AO completed the assessment to the best of his judgement u/s 144 of the Act determining the total income at Rs.165.50 crores.

3. The assessee challenged the same by filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that the assessee submitted the books of accounts before the Ld.CIT(A) with the petition to admit them as additional evidence. He, however, did not admit it and disposed of the appeal grating partial relief to the assessee, vide his order dated 27-03-2003. Hence, both the assessee and revenue challenged the above said order of Ld.CIT(A) by filing appeals before the ITAT. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 28-04- 2006 disposed of the appeal of the assessee, wherein it restored all the matters contested before it to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to consider the books of accounts and take decision on merits afresh in accordance with law. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was also restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 20-12-2006, with identical directions.

4. Consequent to the orders passed by the Tribunal in the first round, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on 09-01-2023 again granting partial relief. It is pertinent to note that, during second round of appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) has called for remand reports from the assessing officer and the assessee was given opportunity by the AO during the course of remand proceedings. We notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has also confronted the remand report with the assessee and also considered the replies given by it against the remand reports. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09-01-2023 came to be passed by the Ld.CIT(A) after considering the explanations furnished by the assessee, remand reports furnished by the AO and the replies of the assessee to the remand reports. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, both the parties have filed these appeals on the issues decided against each of them.

5. Some of the grounds urged by the parties are inter related, i.e.,where the Ld CIT(A) had granted partial relief, both the parties have come on appeal. Those grounds are being adjudicated together. Another fact to be noted down is that Shri Harshad S Mehta, Shri Ashwin S Mehta and Smt Jyoti H Mehta were carrying on share broking business under the