ENKAY LIFE REALTORS PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 20/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Enkay Life Realtors Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the validity of the order passed under section 148A(d) and the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested the jurisdiction and the legality of the notices and orders, citing a lack of consideration of their responses and reliance on a High Court decision which they claimed was not followed, amounting to contempt of court. The tribunal, however, did not delve into these issues as the appeal was withdrawn following the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471368 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TS 2024(BOM)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKITA GORDE; VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 147; 148; 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 20/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Enkay Life Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 21 Plot No. 55, Citi Tower, Sector 15, Opp Nimantran Restaurant, CBD, Konkan Bhavan, S.O. Kokan Bhavan, Thane-400614. Vs. Assessment Unit, Income –tax Department, ITO Ward 15(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan Room No. 456, 4th floor, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAICA 6716 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Ankita Gorde, CA (Virtually Appear) Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/02/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: Ground No. 1: 1.1. On the facts and law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC ['the CIT(A)'], erred in upholding the validity of the order passed under section ('u/s') 148A(d) and the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Ac (the \"Act\"), which were issued without jurisdiction. 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in upholding the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act on the grounds that the Appellant could not object to the issue of jurisdiction once concluded, without considering the reponse on 18th April 2023. 1.3. Thus, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s. 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law. 2. Ground No. 2: 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u following the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court's decision in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TS 2024(BOM) thereby amounting to contempt of court. 2.2. Thus, the Appella 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law 3. Ground No. 3: 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ 68 of the Act. Enkay Life Realtors Pvt. Ltd Ground No. 1: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC ['the CIT(A)'], erred in upholding the validity of the order passed under section ('u/s') 148A(d) and the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Ac (the \"Act\"), which were issued without jurisdiction. 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in upholding the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act on the grounds that the Appellant could not object to the issue of jurisdiction once the Assessment proceedings were concluded, without considering the reponse on 18th April 1.3. Thus, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s. 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law. 2. Ground No. 2: 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act, without following the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court's decision in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TS 2024(BOM) thereby amounting to contempt of court. 2.2. Thus, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s. 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law 3. Ground .1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ 68 of the Act. Enkay Life Realtors Pvt. Ltd 2 ITA No. 20/MUM/2025 circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC ['the CIT(A)'], erred in upholding the validity of the order passed under section ('u/s') 148A(d) and the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the \"Act\"), which were issued without jurisdiction. 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in upholding the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act on the grounds that the Appellant could not object to the issue of the Assessment proceedings were concluded, without considering the reponse on 18th April 1.3. Thus, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s. 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order /s 148 of the Act, without following the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court's decision in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TS-298-HC- 2024(BOM) thereby amounting to contempt of court. nt humbly prays that notice u/s. 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered bad in law 3. Ground .1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/- u/s 3.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that additions were not information available with the Ld. AO 3.3. The Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the issue of order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of th 4. Ground No. 4: 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which was issued without a Document Identification Number (DI body of the notice. 4.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in not considering the legal precedent relied upon by the Appellant. 4.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered void. 5. Ground No. 5: 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO amounting t 68 of the Act. 5.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no violation of principles of natural justice without adjudicating on the submission and additional evidences filed on 7th October 2024 which had brought in fact contrary to the finding of the Ld. AO. in Para 17 to Para 20 of the Assessment order. 5.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ Enkay Life Realtors Pvt. Ltd 3.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that additions were not made on the basis of any relevant information available with the Ld. AO 3.3. The Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the issue of order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act be considered void. 4. Ground No. 4: 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which was issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the notice. 4.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in not considering the legal precedent relied upon by the Appellant. 4.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22nd May 2023 be considered void. 5. Ground No. 5: 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ 68 of the Act. 5.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no violation of principles of natural justice without adjudicating on the submission and additional evidences filed on 7th October 2024 which had brought in fact contrary to the finding of the Ld. AO. in Para 17 to Para 20 of the Assessment order. 5.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act Enkay Life Realtors Pvt. Ltd 3 ITA No. 20/MUM/2025 3.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that made on the basis of any relevant 3.3. The Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the issue of order u/s 148A(d) and notice 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which was issued N) in the 4.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in not considering the 4.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that notice u/s 148 of the Act be struck down as illegal and void ab initio and consequently the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions o Rs. 1,20,00,000/- u/s 5.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no violation of principles of natural justice without adjudicating on the submission and additional evidences filed on 7th October 2024 which had brought in facts contrary to the finding of the Ld. AO. in Para 17 to Para 20 5.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs. 2. At the outset, the that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute by filing an application under the 2024. Accordingly, the assessee seeks to withdraw the present appeal, subject to the acceptanc scheme. In view of these facts, the appeal is withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to file an application for recalling the appeal in the event that the Department does not accept the assessee’s a Vishwas Scheme, 2024 3. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Enkay Life Realtors Pvt. Ltd At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute by filing an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, . Accordingly, the assessee seeks to withdraw the present appeal, subject to the acceptance of the application under the said scheme. In view of these facts, the appeal is , with liberty granted to the assessee to file an application for recalling the appeal in the event that the Department does not accept the assessee’s application under the Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Enkay Life Realtors Pvt. Ltd 4 ITA No. 20/MUM/2025 for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute by filing an Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, . Accordingly, the assessee seeks to withdraw the present e of the application under the said scheme. In view of these facts, the appeal is dismissed as , with liberty granted to the assessee to file an application for recalling the appeal in the event that the Department pplication under the Vivad Se The appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. /02/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "