IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2144/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Rolta India Ltd. , DCIT, CC-1(1), Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Room No. 903, 9^th Floor, Park, 22^nd Street, NIDC, Marol, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Vs.

Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. A nnexe, M.K. Road, PAN: AAACR2711G Mumbai-400020.

Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Shekhar Gupta, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 47, Mumbai (In short "the CIT (A)) dated 31/01/2022 for Assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the disallowance of unexplained purchases to the tune of Rs.

16,91,56,949/-.

2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deduction of disallowing Rs. 121.98 crores u/s. 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.

3. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not allowing long term capital loss on redemption of equity shares in subsidiary companies.

4. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not reducing the profit on sale of shares from the book profit u/s. 115JB in relation to the shares of 2 subsidiary companies namely Rolta UK and Rolta Middle East FZLLC since the shares were not transferred during the year.”

2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of software engineering and development. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2015-16 on 28/11/2015 declaring the total loss of Rs.88,25,83,242. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making various disallowances to arrive at the assessed income of Rs.29,00,61,903. The AO set off the brought forward losses from earlier years to the extent of assessed income to arrive at the total income of nil. The AO also recomputed the book profits under section 115JB at Rs.418,61,51,508. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT appeals who gave partial relief to the assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT appeals.

3. There was a considerable delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal. The ld.AR in this regard submitted that the assessee was undergoing insolvency proceedings before the Hon'ble NCLT and that the tribunal vide its order dated 24/04/2023 has dismissed the appeal for the said reason with a liberty given to the assessee/ resolution professional as the case may be to restore the appeal as and when required. The ld.AR further submitted that the NCLT has passed the final order appointing Shri. Mamta Binani as the interim resolution professional. Accordingly, the ld.AR submitted that Form 36 restoring the appeal before the Tribunal is filed by the interim resolution professional on 25/05/2024. Therefore the ld AR prayed for condonation of delay. The ld. DR did not raise any objection for condoning the delay. Having heard both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are condoning the delay by placing the reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Ground No.1 – Addition towards unexplained purchase

4. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO issued notice under section 133(6) to various parties from whom the assessee has made purchases. Such notices were issued to 33 parties. Out of the total parties to whom notices were served 20 parties responded, 9 parties did not respond and notice could not be served on 4 parties. Out of the total parties who responded t