ARENJA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. ITO, WD 1(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6754/MUM/2024

AI Insights

Arenja Industries Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-51, concerning the validity of reopening an assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The primary issues revolved around the legality of the reopening of the assessment, which the assessee argued was beyond the permissible time frame, constituted a change of opinion, and lacked adequate grounds as it was based on third-party statements without proper cross-examination. Additionally, the assessee contested an addition of Rs 18,00,000 under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, which pertained to share application money received from Riddhi Siddhi Multitrade Pvt Ltd. The assessee claimed that the addition was made without proper evidence and in violation of natural justice. However, before the tribunal could deliberate on these issues, the assessee decided to withdraw the appeal following the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312765 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEKHAR L. GAJBHIYE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL HAKANI
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Principle of natural justice; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 6754/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10) Arenja Industries Pvt. Ltd. 507, Sharda Chambers, 15 New Marine Lines, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 v/s. बिधम ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACA3369F Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Rahul Hakani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 24.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-51 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 04.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Reopening is Bad in Law. 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening in the facts and circumstances of the case. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 6754/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Arenja Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening without appreciating that reopening is beyond four years and it tantamounts to change of opinion and hence reopening is bad in law. 3) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening without appreciating and there is no recording of any failure on the part of Assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts and hence reopening is bad in law. 4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening without appreciating and reopening is done by AO on borrowed satisfaction without any independent Application of Mind and on also on the basis of statement of third party and hence reopening is bad in law. 5) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening without appreciating and that A.O. proceeded with reassessment without disposing objections to reopening and hence, reopening is bad in law. Violation of principles of natural justice 6) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer making addition u/s 68 of Rs 18,00,000/- being share application money received from Riddhi Siddhi Multitrade Pvt Ltd without appreciating that Assessee was not furnished documents/information received from Investigation wing and statement of third party and no cross-examination of third party was provided to the Assessee and thus the reassessment order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence addition of Rs 18,00,000/- may be deleted. On merits, addition u/s 68 of Rs 18,00,000/- is bad in law. 7) The Ld Assessing Officer erred in making addition u/s 68 of Rs 18,00,000/- being share application money received from Riddhi Siddhi Multitrade Pvt Ltd without appreciating that Assessee has discharged it's burden u/s 68 with respect to share application money and entire addition is sustained only on the basis of statement of third party who has retracted the stamen and is also not allowed cross-examination by Assessee and the details submitted by the Assessee are not found false and hence the addition u/s 68 of Rs 18,00,000/- may be deleted.” 3. At the outset, Ld. AR informed that since the assessee has opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS, 2024), the appeal is proposed to be withdrawn. Ld. DR has not objected to the request of the Ld. AR. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 6754/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Arenja Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4. In view of the assessee’s application, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 29.04.2025 अननक ेत स ुंह र जपूत/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "