M/S. GUJARAT REALTORS (FIRM), BHAYANDER V. DCIT, CC-1, THANE

ITA 3523/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2002 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Commercial expediency; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 132; 143(3); 234B; 13; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/s Gujarat Realtors, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Bhayander, 401105. Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-1, Room No. 10, 6 th floor, Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400604. PAN NO. AAHFG 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16/04/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/05/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders, each dated 09.08.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune -11 [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2009-10, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Being common grounds in dispute involved in these appeals, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. 2. First we take up the appeal for assessment year 2009 relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and o addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 90,00,000/ upholding the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/ Assessing Officer and making enhancement of Rs. 10,00,000/ u/s. 68 of the Act alleging the same to be accommod transactions. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by enhancing the income by disallowing the interest amounting to Rs. 10,23,317/ u/s 36 of the Act on the alleged accommodation loan taken. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have held that the proceedings Act is bad itself void and needs to be quashed. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not initiating the proceedings u/s 153C and passing order u/s 147 of the Act. 5. The learned CIT interest u/s 234B of the act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 02.09.2009 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee wa scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income short ‘the Act’) was completed on Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing that assessee had obtained accommodation en he recorded the reason to believe and he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act he issued statutory notices under the Act and completed the reassessment determining total income at R further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained part of the additions. ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 First we take up the appeal for assessment year 2009 relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 90,00,000/ upholding the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- done by the Ld. Assessing Officer and making enhancement of Rs. 10,00,000/ u/s. 68 of the Act alleging the same to be accommod transactions. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by enhancing the income by disallowing the interest amounting to Rs. 10,23,317/ u/s 36 of the Act on the alleged accommodation loan taken. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have held that the proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law and hence the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is itself void and needs to be quashed. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not initiating the proceedings u/s 153C and passing order u/s 147 of the Act. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by levying the interest u/s 234B of the act. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 02.09.2009 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee wa scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 22/03/2013. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing that assessee had obtained accommodation entries and accordingly he recorded the reason to believe that income escaped assessment and he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2016. Thereafter, he issued statutory notices under the Act and completed the reassessment determining total income at Rs.1,10,23,320/ further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained part of the additions. M/s Gujarat Realtors 2 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 First we take up the appeal for assessment year 2009-10. The relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: n facts in making the addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 90,00,000/- (i.e., done by the Ld. Assessing Officer and making enhancement of Rs. 10,00,000/-) u/s. 68 of the Act alleging the same to be accommodation loan The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by enhancing the income by disallowing the interest amounting to Rs. 10,23,317/- u/s 36 of the Act on the alleged accommodation loan taken. the learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax ice issued u/s 148 of the Act is The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not initiating the proceedings u/s 153C (A) has erred in law and on facts by levying the Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 02.09.2009 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was selected for tax Act, 1961 (in Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing tries and accordingly income escaped assessment on 30.03.2016. Thereafter, he issued statutory notices under the Act and completed the s.1,10,23,320/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained part of the additions. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal way of raising grounds 5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to ground No. 3 challenging the reassessment proceedings assessee submitted that in this case reassessment notice has been issued beyond the period from four year from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to record whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts without application of the mind by the Assessing Officer held as unsustainable in law and accordingly liable to be quashed. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on counsel for the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction as to the failure assessee in disclosing material facts fully and truly. The Bombay High Court in the case of Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. Writ ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising grounds as reproduced above. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to ground No. 3 allenging the reassessment proceedings. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case reassessment notice has been issued beyond the period from four year from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to record whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material facts fully and truly. The Ld. counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts, the reassessment proceedi without application of the mind by the Assessing Officer unsustainable in law and accordingly liable to be quashed. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction as to the failure was on the part of the assessee in disclosing material facts fully and truly. The Bombay High Court in the case of Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. Writ M/s Gujarat Realtors 3 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal bu The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to ground No. 3 The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case reassessment notice has been issued beyond the period from four year from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to record whether there was any failure on the part of the facts fully and truly. The Ld. counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar Assistant Commissioner reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) and submitted that in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and the reassessment proceedings being without application of the mind by the Assessing Officer should be unsustainable in law and accordingly liable to be quashed. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in record. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not on the part of the assessee in disclosing material facts fully and truly. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. Writ Petition No. 1091 of 2022 has Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) Hon’ble High Court has referred to the relevant prov of the Act and thereafter concluded that in absence of any such recording on failure on the part of the assessee to disclose facts fully and truly, t sustained. The relevant finding of the Hon’bl reproduced as under : “9 Section 147 of the Act as it stood prior to its substitution with effect from 01.04.2021 by Finance Act, 2021 envisaged that if the assessing offcer has reason to believe in any assessment year, he may subjec Section 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings. The frst proviso of Section 147 furt of Section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under that section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless any inco escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of the assessee inter alia to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. 10 In Hindustan Lever L Income-tax this Court held : “....The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. The reasons are the manifestation of the Assessing Offcer. The reasons recorded should be self explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons. Reasons provide the link between conclusion and evidence. The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. The Asse ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 Petition No. 1091 of 2022 has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) Hon’ble High Court has referred to the relevant prov of the Act and thereafter concluded that in absence of any such recording on failure on the part of the assessee to disclose facts fully and truly, the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High C reproduced as under : 9 Section 147 of the Act as it stood prior to its substitution with effect from 01.04.2021 by Finance Act, 2021 envisaged that if the assessing offcer has reason to believe in any assessment year, he may subject to provisions of Section 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings. The frst proviso of Section 147 further envisages that if an assessment under sub of Section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under that section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of the assessee inter alia to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. 10 In Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of this Court held : “....The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. The reasons are the manifestation of the Assessing Offcer. The reasons recorded should be self explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons. Reasons provide the link between conclusion and evidence. The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. The Asse M/s Gujarat Realtors 4 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble High Court has referred to the relevant provisions u/s 147 of the Act and thereafter concluded that in absence of any such recording on failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material he reassessment proceedings cannot be e High Court(supra) is 9 Section 147 of the Act as it stood prior to its substitution with effect from 01.04.2021 by Finance Act, 2021 envisaged that if the assessing offcer has t to provisions of Section 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings. The frst proviso her envisages that if an assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under that section after the expiry of four years from the end me chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of the assessee inter alia to disclose fully and truly all material facts td Vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of “....The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. The reasons are the manifestation of the mind of the Assessing Offcer. The reasons recorded should be self- explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons. Reasons provide the link between conclusion and evidence. The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for as of that assessment year, so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment.” 11 In Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), the Court set aside the not issued under Section 148 only on this ground. In the said judgment, the Court had noticed that the Assessing Offcer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for touching upon any of the other grounds. 12 From a reading of the reasons recorded although it has been mentioned that income chargeable to take had escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the yet juxtaposed with the later part of the reasons, which states that no scrutiny assessment had been made and that the only requirement was to initiate proceedings under Section 147 on the basis of ‘rea goes to prove that the assessing on the basis of ‘reason to believe’ and not failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, on which too the assessing satisfied as mat 13 In our opinion, the manner in which the assessing reflects total non jurisdictional condition, which was required to be follo Section 147 nor does it in the least satisfy the conditions prescribed in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), as the assessing offcer had failed to highlight in the reasons recorded as to which was that material fact, which was not disclosed by the assessee in its return. 14 For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31 March 2021 as also the Order dated 14 December ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 , in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for as of that assessment year, so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment.” 11 In Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), the Court set aside the not issued under Section 148 only on this ground. In the said judgment, the Court had noticed that the Assessing Offcer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year, without touching upon any of the other grounds. 12 From a reading of the reasons recorded although it has been mentioned that income chargeable to take had escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts, yet juxtaposed with the later part of the reasons, which states that no scrutiny assessment had been made and that the only requirement was to initiate proceedings under Section 147 on the basis of ‘rea goes to prove that the assessing officer had reopened the assessment only on the basis of ‘reason to believe’ and not failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, on which too the assessing officer ought to have been as matter pertained to reopening beyond the period of four years. 13 In our opinion, the manner in which the assessing officer reflects total non-application of mind, which neither jurisdictional condition, which was required to be followed in terms of Section 147 nor does it in the least satisfy the conditions prescribed in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), as the assessing offcer had failed to highlight in the reasons recorded as to which was that material fact, which sclosed by the assessee in its return. 14 For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31 March 2021 as also the Order dated 14 December M/s Gujarat Realtors 5 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 , in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against 11 In Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), the Court set aside the notice impugned issued under Section 148 only on this ground. In the said judgment, the Court had noticed that the Assessing Offcer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material the assessment of that assessment year, without 12 From a reading of the reasons recorded although it has been mentioned that income chargeable to take had escaped assessment on account of assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts, yet juxtaposed with the later part of the reasons, which states that no scrutiny assessment had been made and that the only requirement was to initiate proceedings under Section 147 on the basis of ‘reason to believe’ had reopened the assessment only on the basis of ‘reason to believe’ and not failure to disclose material facts ought to have been ter pertained to reopening beyond the period of four years. officer proceeded application of mind, which neither satisfies the wed in terms of Section 147 nor does it in the least satisfy the conditions prescribed in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), as the assessing offcer had failed to highlight in the reasons recorded as to which was that material fact, which 14 For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31 March 2021 as also the Order dated 14 December 2021 are held to be unsustainable and are accordingly quashed. No Order as to costs.” 6.1 Therefore, for examining the facts of the instants case, relevant to reproduce the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer available on Paper Book page No. 5 “Information has been received from the Director of Income T Mumbai in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain Group: The group provides accommodation entries of bogus loan & advances through various benami concerns operated & managed by above groups. Based on the documents found during the search & seizure action 03/10/2013 by the Investigation Wing, information has been received that M/s. Gujrat Realtors, PAN AAHFG0051C is one of the beneficiary who has got accommodation entry for A.Y. 2009 per information received, the assessee has o entry amounting to Rs 1, 10,23,317/ In view of the above facts of the case, I have reason to believe that amount Rs. 1,10,23,317/ of provisions of Section 147 of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for its assessment for A.Y. 2009 6.2 On perusal of the above reasons recorded, it is evident that though, the notice for reopening has been of four years end of the relevant assessment year but the Assessing Officer has not recorded the reasons to believe that there was a failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all the facts fully and truly. Thus, respectfull Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Punia Capital (supra), the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee cannot be sustained. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 2021 are held to be unsustainable and are accordingly quashed. No Order for examining the facts of the instants case, relevant to reproduce the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer available on Paper Book page No. 5 , as under: Information has been received from the Director of Income T Mumbai in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain Group: The group provides accommodation entries of bogus loan & advances through various benami concerns operated & managed by above groups. Based on the documents found during the search & seizure action 03/10/2013 by the Investigation Wing, information has been received that M/s. Gujrat Realtors, PAN AAHFG0051C is one of the beneficiary who has got accommodation entry for A.Y. 2009-10 from above group. As per information received, the assessee has obtained accommodation entry amounting to Rs 1, 10,23,317/- during A.Y. 2009-10. 1r In view of the above facts of the case, I have reason to believe that amount Rs. 1,10,23,317/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for its assessment for A.Y. 2009-10.” On perusal of the above reasons recorded, it is evident that though, the notice for reopening has been issued beyond the period of four years end of the relevant assessment year but the Assessing Officer has not recorded the reasons to believe that there was a failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all the facts fully respectfully, following the finding of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Punia Capital he reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee cannot be sustained. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee owed. M/s Gujarat Realtors 6 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 2021 are held to be unsustainable and are accordingly quashed. No Order for examining the facts of the instants case, it is relevant to reproduce the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer Information has been received from the Director of Income Tax (Inv)-ll, Mumbai in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain Group: The group provides accommodation entries of bogus loan & advances through various Based on the documents found during the search & seizure action dated 03/10/2013 by the Investigation Wing, information has been received that M/s. Gujrat Realtors, PAN AAHFG0051C is one of the beneficiary 10 from above group. As btained accommodation 10. 1r In view of the above facts of the case, I have reason to believe that has escaped assessment within the meaning Act, due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for its On perusal of the above reasons recorded, it is evident that beyond the period of four years end of the relevant assessment year but the Assessing Officer has not recorded the reasons to believe that there was a failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all the facts fully following the finding of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd he reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee cannot be sustained. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee 6.3 Since, we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered merely academic. 7. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13. The grounds raised by the assessee are under: 1. The re-assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act is void since the principles of natural justice are violated by the Ld. AO as the Ld. AO did not furnish copies of incriminating materials and statements of Shri Pravin Ku appellant and made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. T have held that the proceedings Act is bad itself void and needs to be quashed. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not initiating the proceedings u/s 153C and passing order u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,90,00,000/ by the Ld. Ass be accommodation loan transactions. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by enhancing the income by disallowing the interest amounting to Rs. 11,96,285/ u/s 36 of the Act on the alleged acc the year by the appellant. 6. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by interest u/s 234B of the A 8. In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not referred any failure on the part of the assessee assessee in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) to ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 Since, we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 13. The grounds raised by the assessee are assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act is void since the principles of natural justice are violated by the Ld. AO as the Ld. AO did not furnish copies of incriminating materials and statements of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and others to the appellant and made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have held that the proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law and hence the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is itself void and needs to be quashed. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not initiating the proceedings u/s 153C and passing order u/s 147 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,90,00,000/ by the Ld. Assessing Officer us. 68 of the Act alleging the same to be accommodation loan transactions. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by enhancing the income by disallowing the interest amounting to Rs. 11,96,285/ u/s 36 of the Act on the alleged accommodation loan taken during the year by the appellant. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by interest u/s 234B of the Act. In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not referred any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the fact fully and truly. assessee in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) to M/s Gujarat Realtors 7 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 Since, we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 13. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act is void since the principles of natural justice are violated by the Ld. AO as the Ld. AO did not furnish copies of incriminating materials mar Jain and others to the appellant and made the impugned addition u/s 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 he Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax law and hence the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not initiating the proceedings u/s 153C The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,90,00,000/- made essing Officer us. 68 of the Act alleging the same to The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by enhancing the income by disallowing the interest amounting to Rs. 11,96,285/- ommodation loan taken during The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by charging In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised the ground No. 2 challenging the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not referred any failure on in disclosing the fact fully and truly. The assessee in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) to decide the controversy the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer available on Paper Book page 4 and 5 are reproduced under: 01. The assessee is a Partnership Firm. On verification from ITD system, it is noticed that the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2012 22.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,38,61,360/ u/s. 143(3) of the I. on 24.03.2015 accepting the returned income of Rs.2,38,61,360/ 02. In this case information has been received from the GIT (Inv), Pune, which is forwarded to this office by the DCIT, Circle THN/ACIT/C2/Case Tfr/2017 states that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and his associates on 01.10.2013. During the course o gathered which go to establish that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain is operating various bogus concerns in his own name and in the name of various associates/ relatives/ employees. All such persons are dummy director these concerns which are used by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain in providing accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loans, share application money and purchases. Statements of his various associates were recorded during the course of search, where all of th are controlled and operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and are bogus concerns, engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries only. When all these evidences and examination details of his associates were confronted to Shri Pravin Kumar Jain during the course of recording of his statement u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, he also admitted that he operates a number of bogus concerns 03. The assesses M/S. GUJARAT REALTORS, (AAHFG0051C) is one of the beneficiaries, who concerns which are operated and managed by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. 1. Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd. Faststone Trade(I) Pvt. Ltd.) (PAN: AAACF9430A) 2. Duke Business Pvt. Ltd (JPK Trading 3. Nakshatra Business Pvt. Ltd. (Hema Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCH4279G) 4. Nakshatra Business Pvt. Ltd, (Hema Trading Co. Pvt. Lid. (PAN: AABCH4279G) As per the information from DGIT (Investigation), Pune, the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from the above parties totalling to Rs. 1,90,00,000/- Kumar Jain and suspicious and has remained unexplained ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 decide the controversy the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer available on Paper Book page 4 and 5 are reproduced 01. The assessee is a Partnership Firm. On verification from ITD system, it is noticed that the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2012 22.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,38,61,360/-. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was completed by the ACIT, Circle on 24.03.2015 accepting the returned income of Rs.2,38,61,360/ 02. In this case information has been received from the GIT (Inv), Pune, which is forwarded to this office by the DCIT, Circle-2, Thane THN/ACIT/C2/Case Tfr/2017-18/1440 dated 28.02.2018. The information states that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and his associates on 01.10.2013. During the course of search action various clinching evidences were gathered which go to establish that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain is operating various bogus concerns in his own name and in the name of various associates/ relatives/ employees. All such persons are dummy director these concerns which are used by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain in providing accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loans, share application money and purchases. Statements of his various associates were recorded during the course of search, where all of them have accepted that these concerns are controlled and operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and are bogus concerns, engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries only. When all these evidences and examination details of his associates were ronted to Shri Pravin Kumar Jain during the course of recording of his statement u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, he also admitted that he operates a number of bogus concerns 03. The assesses M/S. GUJARAT REALTORS, (AAHFG0051C) is one of the beneficiaries, who had availed the accommodation entries from the following concerns which are operated and managed by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd. Faststone Trade(I) Pvt. Ltd.) (PAN: AAACF9430A) Rs. 50,00,000/ Duke Business Pvt. Ltd (JPK Trading (1):Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCFJ6245N) Rs. 40,00,000/ Nakshatra Business Pvt. Ltd. (Hema Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCH4279G) Rs. 52,00,000/ Nakshatra Business Pvt. Ltd, (Hema Trading Co. Pvt. Lid. (PAN: AABCH4279G) Rs.48,00,000/ TOTAL Rs.1,90,00,000/ As per the information from DGIT (Investigation), Pune, the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from the above parties totalling to Rs. and these parties are operated and managed by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and therefore the genuineness of these transactions is suspicious and has remained unexplained M/s Gujarat Realtors 8 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 decide the controversy the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer available on Paper Book page 4 and 5 are reproduced as 01. The assessee is a Partnership Firm. On verification from ITD system, it is noticed that the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 on . The assessment T. Act, 1961 was completed by the ACIT, Circle-2, Thane on 24.03.2015 accepting the returned income of Rs.2,38,61,360/-. 02. In this case information has been received from the GIT (Inv), Pune, 2, Thane vide letter No. 18/1440 dated 28.02.2018. The information states that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and his associates on 01.10.2013. f search action various clinching evidences were gathered which go to establish that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain is operating various bogus concerns in his own name and in the name of various associates/ relatives/ employees. All such persons are dummy directors in these concerns which are used by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain in providing accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loans, share application money and purchases. Statements of his various associates were recorded during em have accepted that these concerns are controlled and operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and are bogus concerns, engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries only. When all these evidences and examination details of his associates were ronted to Shri Pravin Kumar Jain during the course of recording of his statement u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, he also admitted that he operates a 03. The assesses M/S. GUJARAT REALTORS, (AAHFG0051C) is one of the had availed the accommodation entries from the following concerns which are operated and managed by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. Rs. 50,00,000/- Rs. 40,00,000/- Rs. 52,00,000/- Rs.48,00,000/- Rs.1,90,00,000/- As per the information from DGIT (Investigation), Pune, the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from the above parties totalling to Rs. and these parties are operated and managed by Shri Pravin therefore the genuineness of these transactions is 04. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee has indulged into such activity to route its unaccounted money through sham transactions which h Rs.1 lakh within the meaning of provisions of clause (b) of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012 05. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee has filed its return of for the year under consideration and the scrutiny assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act on 24.03.2015 on by the ACIT, Circle-2, Thane, accepting the returned income. required to be reopened on the (Investigation). Therefore, the provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to the facts of the case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to ta has escaped assessment. 06. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 in the his case for A.Y. 2012 is required to be obtained from the Pr.Commissioner of Income tax separately as per the provisions of section 151 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, a proposal for sanction for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is submitted.” 8.1 It is evident in the c the Act was completed by the Ld. CIT(A) on u/s 148 is issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year required to record that in disclosing the material facts fully and truly. However, no such observation/satisfaction in the reasons to believe, thus Bombay High Court in the case of Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Assessing Officer to believe , hence, the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained and same are quashed. Since, we have already quashed ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 04. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee has indulged into such activity to route its unaccounted money through sham transactions which has resulted into escapement of income of more than Rs.1 lakh within the meaning of provisions of clause (b) of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13. 05. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee has filed its return of for the year under consideration and the scrutiny assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act on 24.03.2015 on by the ACIT, 2, Thane, accepting the returned income. However, the case is required to be reopened on the basis of information from DGIT (Investigation). Therefore, the provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to the facts of the case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to ta has escaped assessment. 06. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 in the his case for A.Y. 2012 to be obtained from the Pr.Commissioner of Income tax separately as per the provisions of section 151 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, a proposal for sanction for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is It is evident in the case assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.03.2015 and notice is issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, thus the Assessing Officer was required to record that there was failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material facts fully and truly. However, no such /satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer believe, thus relying on the decision of the Hon’ble bay High Court in the case of Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Assessing Officer has not applied mind while recording reasons hence, the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained and same are quashed. Since, we have already quashed M/s Gujarat Realtors 9 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 04. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee has indulged into such activity to route its unaccounted money through sham as resulted into escapement of income of more than Rs.1 lakh within the meaning of provisions of clause (b) of Explanation 2 to 05. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee has filed its return of income for the year under consideration and the scrutiny assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act on 24.03.2015 on by the ACIT, However, the case is basis of information from DGIT (Investigation). Therefore, the provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to the facts of the case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax 06. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 in the his case for A.Y. 2012-13 to be obtained from the Pr.Commissioner of Income tax-I, Thane separately as per the provisions of section 151 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, a proposal for sanction for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is ase assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of 24.03.2015 and notice is issued beyond the period of four years from the end of thus the Assessing Officer was there was failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material facts fully and truly. However, no such recorded by the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the Hon’ble bay High Court in the case of Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has not applied mind while recording reasons hence, the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained and same are quashed. Since, we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered academic. 9. Now we take the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred i disallowance of the interest amounting to Rs. 7,91,274/ on the alleged accommodation loan taken by the 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of th act on the alleged interest concern. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 10. The ground No. 1 is consequential to the additions made in assessment year 2012 same has already been quashed allowed in favour of the assessee. 11. As far as ground No. 2 of the appeal is concerned, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest out of interest charged profit and loss account on the loans to sister’s concern without any commercial expediency ,therefore, interest corresponding to such loan was not allowable. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of the appeal observing as under: “33. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. It is not under dispute that the appel ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 reassessment proceedings, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered academic. Now we take the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 14. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as he learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of the interest amounting to Rs. 7,91,274/- U/s 36 of the act on the alleged accommodation loan taken by the appellant. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the of the interest amounting to Rs. 4,36,642/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the act on the alleged interest-free loan given by the appellant to the sister The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. . 1 is consequential to the additions made in assessment year 2012-13, but the reassessment proceedings has already been quashed by us therefore, this ground is also allowed in favour of the assessee. As far as ground No. 2 of the appeal is concerned, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest out of interest charged profit and loss account on the ground that assessee had loans to sister’s concern without any commercial expediency ore, interest corresponding to such loan was not allowable. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of the appeal observing as 33. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. It is not under dispute that the appellant has taken M/s Gujarat Realtors 10 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 reassessment proceedings, the other grounds raised by the Now we take the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 14. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as n law and on facts in upholding the U/s 36 of the act The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the u/s 36(1)(iii) of the free loan given by the appellant to the sister The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by charging interest u/s . 1 is consequential to the additions made in assessment proceedings for therefore, this ground is also As far as ground No. 2 of the appeal is concerned, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest out of interest charged in ground that assessee had advanced loans to sister’s concern without any commercial expediency ore, interest corresponding to such loan was not allowable. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of the appeal observing as 33. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made lant has taken interest bearing loan of Rs. 30,00,000/ M/s Span Associates and on the other hand, the appellant firm has given interest free loan to another sister concern namely M/s Gujarat Construction. The submission of t not the claim of the appellant that the loan to M/s Gujarat Construction was advanced for any commercial expediency. The only contention of the appellant is that there is no one Span Associates and the loan given to M/s Gujarat Construction. In my opinion, this contention of the appellant is not valid because the appellant has utilized the interest to its sister concern without the Assessing Officer is right in disallowing the interest corresponding to such interest free loan. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,36,642/ the Assessing Officer is upheld. The ground no. 2 raised by t is DISMISSED.” 12. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was having disallowance could be made out of interest paid by the assessee support, the assessee relied on the de High Court in the case of Reliance Utility reported in 313 ITR 314. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that loan reference was borrowed on 12.12.2011 advanced to M/s Gujarat Const said date except an amount of Rs.6,00,000/ subsequent to loan borrowed, disallowance of interest could be corresponding to the loan Rs.6,00,000/- only. 13. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. any detailed in support of availability of the funds and therefore, the said ground can’t be allowed in favour of far as the alternative ground of concerned the table of loan received ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 interest bearing loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- from its sister concern namely M/s Span Associates and on the other hand, the appellant firm has given interest free loan to another sister concern namely M/s Gujarat Construction. The submission of the appellant further suggests that it is not the claim of the appellant that the loan to M/s Gujarat Construction was advanced for any commercial expediency. The only contention of the appellant is that there is no one-to-one matching of the loan taken fro Span Associates and the loan given to M/s Gujarat Construction. In my opinion, this contention of the appellant is not valid because the appellant has utilized the interest-bearing funds for advancing the interest free loan to its sister concern without any business purposes. In such a situation, the Assessing Officer is right in disallowing the interest corresponding to such interest free loan. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,36,642/ the Assessing Officer is upheld. The ground no. 2 raised by t ” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was having own sufficient fund and therefore, no disallowance could be made out of interest paid by the assessee the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility reported in 313 ITR 314. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that loan borrowed on 12.12.2011, whereas the loan which was advanced to M/s Gujarat Construction (related party) amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, which was advanced subsequent to loan borrowed, therefore, at maximum disallowance of interest could be corresponding to the loan d rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the assessee has not filed any detailed in support of availability of the funds and therefore, can’t be allowed in favour of assessee as the alternative ground of concerned the table of loan received M/s Gujarat Realtors 11 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 from its sister concern namely M/s Span Associates and on the other hand, the appellant firm has given interest free loan to another sister concern namely M/s Gujarat he appellant further suggests that it is not the claim of the appellant that the loan to M/s Gujarat Construction was advanced for any commercial expediency. The only contention of the one matching of the loan taken from Span Associates and the loan given to M/s Gujarat Construction. In my opinion, this contention of the appellant is not valid because the appellant bearing funds for advancing the interest free loan any business purposes. In such a situation, the Assessing Officer is right in disallowing the interest corresponding to such interest free loan. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,36,642/- made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. The ground no. 2 raised by the appellant Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that sufficient fund and therefore, no disallowance could be made out of interest paid by the assessee. In cision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility reported in 313 ITR 314. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that loan in whereas the loan which was ruction (related party) is prior to , which was advanced therefore, at maximum, the disallowance of interest could be corresponding to the loan of d rival submission of the parties and perused the Before us, the assessee has not filed any detailed in support of availability of the funds and therefore, assessee, however, as as the alternative ground of concerned the table of loan received from M/s Span Associates is reproduced as under: Loan Taken from Span Associates Date Amount 12-12-2011 2,00,00,000 Total 2,00,00,000 13.1 From the above table it is evident that a loan of Rs.6,00,000/ has been extended to the related party after the loan taken Span associates ,therefore, we direct restrict disallowance of interest corresponding to loan Rs.6,00,000/- only. The ground of the assessee is accordingly allowed partly. 14. In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009 2012-13 are allowed whereas appeal for assessment year 2013 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open C Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/05/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 from M/s Span Associates and loan given to Gujarat Cons s reproduced as under: Loan Taken from Span Associates Loan given to Gujarat Construction Amount Date Amount 2,00,00,000 29-12-2010 5,00,000 29-01-2011 10,00,000 26-02-2011 2,50,000 26-02-2011 1,00,000 11-03-2011 1,00,000 20-04-2011 1,00,000 31-10-2012 6,00,000 2,00,00,000 Total 26,50,000 From the above table it is evident that a loan of Rs.6,00,000/ has been extended to the related party after the loan taken ,therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer restrict disallowance of interest corresponding to loan only. The ground of the assessee is accordingly In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009 13 are allowed whereas appeal for assessment year 2013 Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/05/2024. Sd/- Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Gujarat Realtors 12 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 Gujarat Construction Loan given to Gujarat Construction Amount 5,00,000 10,00,000 2,50,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 6,00,000 26,50,000 From the above table it is evident that a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- has been extended to the related party after the loan taken from the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance of interest corresponding to loan amount of only. The ground of the assessee is accordingly In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 and 13 are allowed whereas appeal for assessment year 2013-14 /05/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Gujarat Realtors 13 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai