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

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 287/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14)

ITA No. 288/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15)

ITA No. 289/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

ITA No. 290/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17)

ITA No. 291/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18)

Tuto r Investment & Finance v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Limited,601, Ravi बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –

Building 189/191 DR. D.N. 6(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Road, Near Central Camera, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Fort Mumbai, Mumbai G.P.O. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai

400 001, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACT6382P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Snehal Shah, CA Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH :-

The above captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) CIT(A) 54, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] of even date pertaining to the order passed u/s. 147/143(3)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2013-14 and 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 and the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y.2017-18. Since some of the issues are common and also the fact that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity.

2. Grounds of appeal for AYs 2013-14,2014-15 and 2015-16 are as below:

ITA No. 287/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14)

1.The learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the Act of the Ld. AO of issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective.

2.The Learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the addition of Rs.80,80,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective.

ITA No. 288/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15)

1.The learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the Act of the Ld. AO of issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective.

2. The Learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai Erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,28,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective.

3.The Learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai Erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,13,81,400/- on account of fictitious losses without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective.

4.The Learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai Erred in confirming the addition Rs. 1,46,58,000/- on account of difference in valuation of shares u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective.

ITA No. 289/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

1.The learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the Act of the Ld. AO of issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective.

2.The Learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the addition of Rs.74,84,295/- u/s 68 of the Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective.

3.The Learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective.

3. We take up appeals in ITA No.287/288 and

289/Mum/2025 first, since issues involved are mostly identical. Facts of the case are that based on certain inputs from the Investigation unit of the Income Tax department w.r.t. cash credits in the bank account and also F&O losses, the AO reopened the assessments u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee, he made additions on account of unexplained credit treating them to be accommodation entries only liable to be added u/s 68 of the Act. Likewise, F&O losses were also considered to be bogus and obtained through dubiou