M/S. GLINT INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, , MUMBAI-1

ITA 871/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around the revision of an assessment order concerning M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2012-13. Initially, the assessee filed a return which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, following information from the investigation wing about interconnected fund transfers without economic rationale, the assessment was reopened under section 147. The PCIT later found the reassessment order to be erroneous as it did not adequately address the concerns raised about the transactions with various entities, leading to the revision of the assessment order under section 263. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the PCIT's revision, emphasizing the need for thorough verification in cases involving complex financial transactions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123653 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2011
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT, Smt Taradevi Agrwal vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Assessment record
• Section: 68; 148; 263; 2; 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 871/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, 5 th floor, Sunteck Centre, 37- 40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Room No. 330, 3 rd floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCG 5620 L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against revision order dated 16/03/2022 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT)-1, Mumbai ( in short ‘ the PCIT’) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act), wherein he has revised the assessment order dated 09/12/2019 passed by the Asst Commissioner of Income-tax-Circle 9(3)(2), Mumbai (in short ‘the Ld. Assessing Officer or AO 147 of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has erred in initiating proceedings U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide show and passing an order U/s 263 of the Act, without considering the facts & Circumsta 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in passing Revision Order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act passed by the Lear Assessing Officer after making adequate enquiries and application of mind, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in considering order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the fact and circumstances Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in setting aside Assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer and directing him to reframe the assessment order denovo M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer or AO’) under section 143(3) read with section The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has erred in initiating proceedings U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide show-cause notice dated 27.01.2022 and passing an order U/s 263 of the Act, without considering the facts & Circumstances of the case. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in passing Revision Order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act passed by the Lear Assessing Officer after making adequate enquiries and application of mind, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in considering order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in setting aside Assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer and directing him to reframe the assessment order denovo M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 2 under section 143(3) read with section The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has erred in initiating proceedings U/s 263 of the Income Tax cause notice dated 27.01.2022 and passing an order U/s 263 of the Act, without considering 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in passing Revision Order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act passed by the Learned Assessing Officer after making adequate enquiries and application of mind, without considering the facts and 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in considering the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in setting aside Assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer and directing him to reframe the assessment order denovo after conducting all the necessary enquiries, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case that that the assessee company filed return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2012 declaring total income of further revised on 13/02/2013 at total income of The return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the from the investigation wing, Mumbai that the assessee was indulged in high number economic rationale, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by way of issuing notice under section 148 of the on 30/03/2019. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 19/04/2019 reiterating the total income of ₹ provided to the assessee. The objections raised by the assessee against the reopening of the a the Assessing Officer on 20/08/2019. In para 4.1 of the reasons recorded, there is mention of 10 parties of M/s Suntech Group, with whom the assessee allegedly made intercon transfer. Out of those 10 parties , detailed transactions in resp two parties namely M/s MoonScape services Private Limited and M/s Nifty realty Private Limited were mentioned in para 4.2 and 4.3 of the reasons recorded. The Assessing Officer in the reassessment order 09/12/2019 held the receipt of M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. after conducting all the necessary enquiries, without idering the facts and circumstances of the case. stated facts of the case that that the assessee company filed return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2012 declaring total income of ₹ 51, 23, 180/ n 13/02/2013 at total income of ₹ The return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on receipt of information from the investigation wing, Mumbai that the assessee was mber of interconnected fund transfer without an economic rationale, the assessment was reopened under section by way of issuing notice under section 148 of the on 30/03/2019. In response to the notice under section 148 of the , the assessee filed return of income on 19/04/2019 reiterating 50, 99, 480/-. A copy of reasons recorded was provided to the assessee. The objections raised by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment were also disposed o the Assessing Officer on 20/08/2019. In para 4.1 of the reasons recorded, there is mention of 10 parties of M/s Suntech Group, with whom the assessee allegedly made intercon se 10 parties , detailed transactions in resp two parties namely M/s MoonScape services Private Limited and M/s Nifty realty Private Limited were mentioned in para 4.2 and 4.3 of the reasons recorded. The Assessing Officer in the reassessment order 09/12/2019 held the receipt of ₹ 15 lakh from M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 3 after conducting all the necessary enquiries, without idering the facts and circumstances of the case. stated facts of the case that that the assessee company filed return of income for the year under consideration on 51, 23, 180/-, which was ₹ 50, 99, 480/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed under . Subsequently, on receipt of information from the investigation wing, Mumbai that the assessee was of interconnected fund transfer without an economic rationale, the assessment was reopened under section by way of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 30/03/2019. In response to the notice under section 148 of the , the assessee filed return of income on 19/04/2019 reiterating . A copy of reasons recorded was provided to the assessee. The objections raised by the assessee ssessment were also disposed off by the Assessing Officer on 20/08/2019. In para 4.1 of the reasons recorded, there is mention of 10 parties of M/s Suntech Group, with whom the assessee allegedly made interconnected fund se 10 parties , detailed transactions in respect of two parties namely M/s MoonScape services Private Limited and M/s Nifty realty Private Limited were mentioned in para 4.2 and 4.3 of the reasons recorded. The Assessing Officer in the reassessment 15 lakh from Moonscape Services Private Limited Private Limited totalling to credit under section 68 of the 3.1 Subsequently, the and after examination order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous prejudicial to the interest of the Assessing Officer failed to verify interconnected fund transfer through the relevant bank account of the assessee maintained with Kotak Mahindra Mumbai having value to the extent of same were transactions of nature similar to transactions in respect of two parties, for which he had made additions. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT, issued show cause notice to the assessee proposing to revise the assessment order under reference. After considering the submission of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) recorded factual observations, which are extracted as under: 7.1. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the AO has not carried out proper verification of ledger accounts submitted by the assessee. On perusal of ledger account of N Ltd. in the books of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has received total credit of Rs. 4.97.50,000/ Pvt. Ltd. While the AO has added only Rs. 4,92,50,000/ total income of the assessee under section 68. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Services Private Limited and ₹ 4.92 Crores from totalling to ₹5,07,50,000/-as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT called for the assessment record and after examination of the records, he opined that order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in view of the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to verify or examine all the transactions of interconnected fund transfer through the relevant bank account of the assessee maintained with Kotak Mahindra, Andheri East, having value to the extent of ₹51,25,02, same were transactions of nature similar to transactions in respect two parties, for which he had made additions. Accordingly, the PCIT, issued show cause notice to the assessee proposing to revise the assessment order under reference. After considering the submission of the assessee and perusal of the assessment reco the Ld. CIT(A) recorded factual observations, which are extracted as 7.1. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the AO has not carried out proper verification of ledger accounts submitted by the assessee. On perusal of ledger account of Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has received total credit of Rs. 4.97.50,000/- from Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. While the AO has added only Rs. 4,92,50,000/ total income of the assessee under section 68. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 4 4.92 Crores from Nifty Realty as unexplained cash PCIT called for the assessment record the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as in view of the fact that the all the transactions of interconnected fund transfer through the relevant bank account of , Andheri East, 25,02,000/-, though same were transactions of nature similar to transactions in respect two parties, for which he had made additions. Accordingly, the PCIT, issued show cause notice to the assessee proposing to revise the assessment order under reference. After considering the the assessment record, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded factual observations, which are extracted as 7.1. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the AO has not carried out proper verification of ledger accounts submitted by ifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee from Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. While the AO has added only Rs. 4,92,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee under section 68. No reason or record is available as to why the AO chose not to add the remaining Rs. 5,00,000/ The action of the AO is not as per law and is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The relevant ledge account is reproduced below for reference 7.2. Similarly, the AO has added Rs. 15 lakh to the total income of the assessee which is sum received from Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. do lend the said sum to the assessee. However, on perusal of ledger account of Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the assessee, it is seen that transactions of Rs. 16,02,50,000/ and Moonscape Facility Management Put. Ltd. out of which only Rs. 15 lakh M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. record is available as to why the AO chose not to add the remaining Rs. 5,00,000/- received from Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. The action of the AO is not as per law and is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The relevant ledge account is reproduced below for reference- 7.2. Similarly, the AO has added Rs. 15 lakh to the total income of the assessee which is sum received from Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. does not have the creditworthiness to lend the said sum to the assessee. However, on perusal of ledger account of Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the assessee, it is seen that transactions of Rs. 16,02,50,000/- have been undertaken between the assessee and Moonscape Facility Management Put. Ltd. out of which only Rs. 15 lakh- being the sum added by AO for lack of M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 5 record is available as to why the AO chose not to add the received from Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. The action of the AO is not as per law and is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The relevant ledger 7.2. Similarly, the AO has added Rs. 15 lakh to the total income of the assessee which is sum received from Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that Moonscape Facility es not have the creditworthiness to lend the said sum to the assessee. However, on perusal of ledger account of Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the assessee, it is seen that transactions of Rs. between the assessee and Moonscape Facility Management Put. Ltd. out of which being the sum added by AO for lack of creditworthiness has given no clarification or justification in the assessmen order as to why the remaining sum has not been added to the total income of the assessee even after recording the finding of lack of creditworthiness of the lender. The action of the AO in not making proper verification of the facts and thereby failing t make the correct assessment of the total income for the year under consideration, is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The relevant ledger account is reproduced below for reference 7.3 There are similar transactions the AO failed to verify during the course of assessment proceedings which are tabulated below: M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. creditworthiness-is only one of the many transactions. The AO has given no clarification or justification in the assessmen order as to why the remaining sum has not been added to the total income of the assessee even after recording the finding of lack of creditworthiness of the lender. The action of the AO in not making proper verification of the facts and thereby failing t make the correct assessment of the total income for the year under consideration, is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The relevant ledger account is reproduced below for reference- There are similar transactions with other parties which the AO failed to verify during the course of assessment proceedings which are tabulated below: M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 6 is only one of the many transactions. The AO has given no clarification or justification in the assessment order as to why the remaining sum has not been added to the total income of the assessee even after recording the finding of lack of creditworthiness of the lender. The action of the AO in not making proper verification of the facts and thereby failing to make the correct assessment of the total income for the year under consideration, is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The relevant ledger account is with other parties which the AO failed to verify during the course of assessment 4. The Ld. PCIT, further distinguish by the Ld. Authorized Representative CIT Vs Sunbeam auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), observing as under: “8. The assessee's representative has relied on the ruling in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, reliance on this case law is not correct because in that case sufficient material was available on record. In this case, the AO had made addition u/s.68 for the transactions of Rs.5,07,50,000/ and represented income of the assessee from undisclosed sources brought under the garb of loans. The assessee had carried out similar tran interconnected fund transfers through its same bank account to the extent of Rs.51.25,02,000/ instant case and facts of that case relied upon are totally different. The Assessment Order is silent M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. PCIT, further distinguished the decisions relied upon ed Representative of the assessee in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), observing as 8. The assessee's representative has relied on the ruling in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, reliance on this case law is not correct because in that case sufficient material was available on record. In this the AO had made addition u/s.68 for the transactions of Rs.5,07,50,000/- being loans received which were not genuine and represented income of the assessee from undisclosed sources brought under the garb of loans. The assessee had carried out similar transactions of high number of interconnected fund transfers through its same bank account to the extent of Rs.51.25,02,000/- and therefore, the facts of the instant case and facts of that case relied upon are totally different. The Assessment Order is silent regarding part M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 7 the decisions relied upon of the assessee in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), observing as 8. The assessee's representative has relied on the ruling in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, reliance on this case law is not correct because in that case sufficient material was available on record. In this the AO had made addition u/s.68 for the transactions of being loans received which were not genuine and represented income of the assessee from undisclosed sources brought under the garb of loans. The assessee had sactions of high number of interconnected fund transfers through its same bank account to and therefore, the facts of the instant case and facts of that case relied upon are totally regarding part addition of loans from Nifty Realty Pvt Ltd of Rs. 4,92,50,000/ and from Moonscape Facility Management Pt Ltd of Rs. 15,00,000/- 16,02 50-00Q/ required.” 4.1 The Ld. PCIT concluded that assessment was made without conducting requisites inquiries and verification by the Assessing Officer and held the assessment order a prejudicial to the interest of the law particularly Explanation Act. The Ld. PCIT also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi (supra) to support that assessment without necessary enquiry is warr erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the 5. All the ground raised by the assessee are with respect to the sole issue of revision of the assessment or the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed paperbook paper book-II ( Pages 38 to 113). 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel Assessing Officer had carried out all the necessary enquiry regarding the 10 parties including the two parties in respect of which he has made addition. The the paperbook, which is annexure of the notice under section 142(1) M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. addition of loans from Nifty Realty Pvt Ltd of Rs. 4,92,50,000/ and from Moonscape Facility Management Pt Ltd of Rs. whereas full addition of Rs. 4,97,00,000/ 00Q/- respectively from these two creditors is PCIT concluded that assessment was made without conducting requisites inquiries and verification by the Assessing and held the assessment order as erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in view of the ame Explanation-2, clause (a) below section 263 of the PCIT also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt TaradeviAgrwal (supra) and Rampyari Devi Sarogi (supra) to support that assessment without necessary enquiry is warranted on the facts of the case a erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the All the ground raised by the assessee are with respect to the sole issue of revision of the assessment order by the PCIT. Before us he assessee filed paperbook-I (pages 1 to 37) and II ( Pages 38 to 113). Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had carried out all the necessary enquiry regarding the 10 parties including the two parties in respect of which he has made addition. The Ld. counsel referred to page 1 the paperbook, which is annexure of the notice under section 142(1) M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 8 addition of loans from Nifty Realty Pvt Ltd of Rs. 4,92,50,000/- and from Moonscape Facility Management Pt Ltd of Rs. whereas full addition of Rs. 4,97,00,000/- and Rs. respectively from these two creditors is PCIT concluded that assessment was made without conducting requisites inquiries and verification by the Assessing s erroneous insofar as in view of the amended 2, clause (a) below section 263 of the PCIT also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble TaradeviAgrwal (supra) and Rampyari Devi Sarogi (supra) to support that assessment completed anted on the facts of the case as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. All the ground raised by the assessee are with respect to the der by the PCIT. Before us pages 1 to 37) and of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had carried out all the necessary enquiry regarding the 10 parties including the two parties in respect of referred to page 19 of the paperbook, which is annexure of the notice under section 142(1) dated 11/11/2019 issued by the assessment proceeding. According to him, the asked all the information in respect of those parties including nature of transactions, copy of ledger account, copy of bank account statement, documents in support of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of the sum found credited from above entities. referred to reply of the above question asked by the Assessing Officer, available on PB 38 to 113. He submitted that all the det in respect of those 10 parties as was asked by the Assessing Officer, was duly filed before the counsel, the Assessing Officer after due application of mind has accepted the explanation of the assessee and c make any addition. Thus the allegation of the enquiry or verification was made in respect of the sum credited in respect of parties, other than two parties in respect of which the Assessing Officer has made addition 6.1 The Ld. counsel by the PCIT is barred by the limitation section 263 of the Act subject matter of the reassessment proceeding and therefore two years period contemplated under subsection 2 of section 263 begin to run from the date of original assessment i.e from the date of reassessment. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. dated 11/11/2019 issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer du assessment proceeding. According to him, the Ld. Assessing Officer asked all the information in respect of those parties including nature of transactions, copy of ledger account, copy of bank account statement, documents in support of identity, worthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of the sum found credited from above entities. The Ld. counsel referred to reply of the above question asked by the Assessing Officer, available on PB 38 to 113. He submitted that all the det in respect of those 10 parties as was asked by the Assessing Officer, was duly filed before the Ld. Assessing Officer. According to the , the Assessing Officer after due application of mind has accepted the explanation of the assessee and considered not to make any addition. Thus the allegation of the Ld. enquiry or verification was made in respect of the sum credited in other than two parties in respect of which the Assessing Officer has made addition are baseless. Ld. counsel also questioned that impugned order passed by the PCIT is barred by the limitation because in the notice under Act issues have been raised, which subject matter of the reassessment proceeding and therefore two years period contemplated under subsection 2 of section 263 begin to run from the date of original assessment i.e from the date of reassessment. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 9 Assessing Officer during Assessing Officer asked all the information in respect of those parties including nature of transactions, copy of ledger account, copy of bank account statement, documents in support of identity, worthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of Ld. counsel further referred to reply of the above question asked by the Assessing Officer, available on PB 38 to 113. He submitted that all the details in respect of those 10 parties as was asked by the Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. , the Assessing Officer after due application of mind has onsidered not to Ld. PCIT, that no enquiry or verification was made in respect of the sum credited in other than two parties in respect of which the also questioned that impugned order passed because in the notice under issues have been raised, which were not subject matter of the reassessment proceeding and therefore two years period contemplated under subsection 2 of section 263, would begin to run from the date of original assessment i.e. 143(1) and not 7. The Ld. DR on t PCIT and submitted that the facts of creditworthiness and genuineness of the 10 (ten) are identical therefore, when respect of two parties, addition in respect of remaining eight parties having identical facts of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. According to the Ld. DR, the Assessing Officer has not verified the submissions of the a which he ought to have carried out in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore according to him, the Ld holding that no enquiry or verification which should have been done in the case, has been carried out. Regarding the issue of the limitation, he submitted that the issues which have been raised are arising from the reasons recorded and therefore those are very much subject matter of the reassessment proceeding and therefore the period of the two years contemplated under section 263(2) of the Act, run from the date of the reassessment order and not from the intimation under section 143(1) of the 8. We have heard rival submission of the party on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant recorded being relevant for adjudication of reproduced for ready reference as under: M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld PCIT and submitted that the facts of creditworthiness and 10 (ten) parties listed in the reasons recorded are identical therefore, when the Ld. AO had made addition in respect of two parties, it was not logical for him to not to make addition in respect of remaining eight parties having identical facts of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. According DR, the Assessing Officer has not verified the submissions of the assessee and did not carry out the enquiry which he ought to have carried out in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore according to him, the Ld. PCIT is justified in holding that no enquiry or verification which should have been done e, has been carried out. Regarding the issue of the limitation, he submitted that the issues which have been raised are arising from the reasons recorded and therefore those are very much subject matter of the reassessment proceeding and therefore od of the two years contemplated under section 263(2) of the , run from the date of the reassessment order and not from the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act in the case. We have heard rival submission of the party on the issue in nd perused the relevant material on record. recorded being relevant for adjudication of controversy reproduced for ready reference as under: M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 10 relied on the order of the Ld PCIT and submitted that the facts of creditworthiness and parties listed in the reasons recorded had made addition in it was not logical for him to not to make addition in respect of remaining eight parties having identical facts of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. According DR, the Assessing Officer has not verified the ssessee and did not carry out the enquiry which he ought to have carried out in the facts and circumstances PCIT is justified in holding that no enquiry or verification which should have been done e, has been carried out. Regarding the issue of the limitation, he submitted that the issues which have been raised are arising from the reasons recorded and therefore those are very much subject matter of the reassessment proceeding and therefore od of the two years contemplated under section 263(2) of the , run from the date of the reassessment order and not from the in the case. We have heard rival submission of the party on the issue in material on record. The reasons controversy, same are “3. The relevant portion of the reason for reopening is reproduced as under: "2. During the cour office, it has been observed that M/s.Glint Infraprojects Put. Lid, is having bank Account No.06372010000610 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri (East) Branch wherein there are high number of interconnected fund tra 3. From the perusal of ITs of Ms. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that the assessee is filing its returns of income regularly and the latest return of income filed is for A.Y.2018 year-wise details of income as per the by the assessee for various assessment years are as under: 4.1 From the perusal of bank statement of Account No.06372010000610 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri (East) Branch pertaining to M/s. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Lid. submitted by the assessee, it is noticed that there are loans & advances / investments from several entities and the same are immediately transferred as loans & advances / investments to M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 3. The relevant portion of the reason for reopening is reproduced as under: "2. During the course of discreet enquiries conducted by this office, it has been observed that M/s.Glint Infraprojects Put. Lid, is having bank Account No.06372010000610 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri (East) Branch wherein there are high number of interconnected fund transfers carried out. From the perusal of ITs of Ms. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that the assessee is filing its returns of income regularly and the latest return of income filed is for A.Y.2018 wise details of income as per the returns of income filed by the assessee for various assessment years are as under: From the perusal of bank statement of Account No.06372010000610 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri (East) Branch pertaining to M/s. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Lid. itted by the assessee, it is noticed that there are loans & advances / investments from several entities and the same are immediately transferred as loans & advances / investments to M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 11 3. The relevant portion of the reason for reopening is se of discreet enquiries conducted by this office, it has been observed that M/s.Glint Infraprojects Put. Lid, is having bank Account No.06372010000610 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri (East) Branch wherein there are high nsfers carried out. From the perusal of ITs of Ms. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that the assessee is filing its returns of income regularly and the latest return of income filed is for A.Y.2018-19. The returns of income filed by the assessee for various assessment years are as under:- From the perusal of bank statement of Account No.06372010000610 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri (East) Branch pertaining to M/s. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Lid. itted by the assessee, it is noticed that there are loans & advances / investments from several entities and the same are immediately transferred as loans & advances / investments to / other entities. It is noticed that the following companies related to Suntech Group are appearing in the bank statement wherein interconnected transfers taken place with transactions more than Rs.2 lakhs. Sr. No. 1. Vishwas Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 2. Satguru Capital 3. Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. 4. SW Capital Pvt. Ltd. 5. Nivedita Mercantile & Financing Ltd. 6. Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. 7. Amish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 8. Sunteck Wealthmax Capital Pvt. Ltd. 9. Naksh IT solutions Pvt. Ltd. 10. Brown Trading Pvt. Ltd. 4.2 For instance, in the bank Account M/s.Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Lid. with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri(East) Branch, loan & advances of Rs.15 lakhs received on 87.04.2011 from Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. are immediately transferred to Vishwas Finvest Pvt. Lt same day as loans & advances. The creditworthiness of the loans & advances of Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Lid. is found to be doubtful after analyzing its financials which are tabulated as under: MOONSCAPE SERVICES PVT. LTD. PAN: AAHCM0292 M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. / other entities. It is noticed that the following companies untech Group are appearing in the bank statement wherein interconnected transfers taken place with transactions more than Rs.2 lakhs. Name of the Company/entity Vishwas Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Satguru Capital Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. SW Capital Pvt. Ltd. Nivedita Mercantile & Financing Ltd. Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd. Amish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Sunteck Wealthmax Capital Pvt. Ltd. Naksh IT solutions Pvt. Ltd. Brown Trading Pvt. Ltd. For instance, in the bank Account No.06372010000610 of M/s.Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Lid. with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri(East) Branch, loan & advances of Rs.15 lakhs received on 87.04.2011 from Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. are immediately transferred to Vishwas Finvest Pvt. Lt same day as loans & advances. The creditworthiness of the loans & advances of Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Lid. is found to be doubtful after analyzing its financials which are tabulated as under: MOONSCAPE SERVICES PVT. LTD. PAN: AAHCM0292] M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 12 / other entities. It is noticed that the following companies untech Group are appearing in the bank statement wherein interconnected transfers taken place with transactions No.06372010000610 of M/s.Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Lid. with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri(East) Branch, loan & advances of Rs.15 lakhs received on 87.04.2011 from Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. are immediately transferred to Vishwas Finvest Pvt. Ltd. on the same day as loans & advances. The creditworthiness of the loans & advances of Moonscape Facility Management Pvt. Lid. is found to be doubtful after analyzing its financials which are 4.3 Further, in the bank Account No. 06372010000610 of M/s.Glint Infraprojects Prt. Ltd. with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri(East) Branch, loan & advances of Rs.4,92,50,000 received from Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd on 13.09.2011 are immediately transferred to same day as loans & advances. The creditworthiness of the loans & advances of Nifty Really Pvt. Lid. is found to be doubtful after analyzing its financials which are tabulated as under:- NIFTY REALTY PVT. LTD. PAN : AACCN82 AO : ITO-10(3) (1), MUMBAI. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Further, in the bank Account No. 06372010000610 of M/s.Glint Infraprojects Prt. Ltd. with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri(East) Branch, loan & advances of Rs.4,92,50,000 received from Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd on 13.09.2011 are immediately transferred to Vishwas Finvest Pvt. Lid. on the same day as loans & advances. The creditworthiness of the loans & advances of Nifty Really Pvt. Lid. is found to be doubtful after analyzing its financials which are tabulated as NIFTY REALTY PVT. LTD. PAN : AACCN8298C 10(3) (1), MUMBAI. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 13 Further, in the bank Account No. 06372010000610 of M/s.Glint Infraprojects Prt. Ltd. with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Andheri(East) Branch, loan & advances of Rs.4,92,50,000 received from Nifty Realty Pvt. Ltd on 13.09.2011 are Vishwas Finvest Pvt. Lid. on the same day as loans & advances. The creditworthiness of the loans & advances of Nifty Really Pvt. Lid. is found to be doubtful after analyzing its financials which are tabulated as 8.1 As far as inquiries or verification not carried out by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the additions. Firstly, the amount of additions made in respect of from two parties was accounts. The Ld. Moonscape facility Management Private Limited transactions of the ₹16,02,50,000/- is appearing in the books of accounts, whereas Assessing Officer has m respect of NIFTY realty Private Limited, the Ld PCIT has pointed o that credit of ₹4,97,50,000/ whereas the Assessing Officer has added only the extent of these two discrepancies, there is no doubt that order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, because he did not verify the submission of the assessee, particularly, books of accounts of the assessee. 8.2 Regarding the, other eight parties Assessing Officer referred in PB “As per information available on record, you have entered into transaction during F.Y. 2011-12 with the following entities: 1. ViswasFinvest Pvt Ltd 2. Satguru Capital M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. As far as inquiries or verification not carried out by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Ld. PCIT has pointed out t additions. Firstly, the amount of additions made in respect of was not as per the amount recorded in their ledger PCIT has mentioned that in case of scape facility Management Private Limited transactions of the appearing in the books of accounts, whereas Assessing Officer has made addition only of ₹ 15 lakh. Similarly in respect of NIFTY realty Private Limited, the Ld PCIT has pointed o 50,000/- is appearing in the books of account, whereas the Assessing Officer has added only ₹4,92,50,000/ of these two discrepancies, there is no doubt that order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, because he did not verify the submission of the particularly, the ledger account of those two parti books of accounts of the assessee. arding the, other eight parties, the question Assessing Officer referred in PB-19 are reproduced as under: As per information available on record, you have entered into transaction during 12 with the following entities: 1. ViswasFinvest Pvt Ltd 2. Satguru Capital M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 14 As far as inquiries or verification not carried out by the PCIT has pointed out two additions. Firstly, the amount of additions made in respect of credit not as per the amount recorded in their ledger PCIT has mentioned that in case of M/s scape facility Management Private Limited transactions of the appearing in the books of accounts, whereas 15 lakh. Similarly in respect of NIFTY realty Private Limited, the Ld PCIT has pointed out is appearing in the books of account, 4,92,50,000/-. To of these two discrepancies, there is no doubt that order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, because he did not verify the submission of the ledger account of those two parties in the , the questions asked by the reproduced as under: As per information available on record, you have entered into 3. Moonscape Facility Management Pvt Ltd 4. SW Capital Pvt Ltd 5. Nivedita Mercantile and Financing Ltd 6. Nifty Reality Pvt Ltd V 7. Amish Infrastrucure Pr Lid 8. SunteckWealtimax Pvt Ltd 9. Naksh IT Solutions 10. Brown Trading.Pt Ltd In this regard these, entities you are requested to furnish following details/explanation: 1. Nature of transaction with the said entity during F.Y. 2011 12 with all supporting 2. Copy of ledger accounts of each entity for the F.Y. 2011 3. Copy of all bank account statement highlighting the transactions with the above entities. 4. You are requested to provide rational of transaction with relevant supporting docume creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in respect of any sum found credited from above entities. 2. Copy of cash book for the year under consideration. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 3. Moonscape Facility Management Pvt Ltd 4. SW Capital Pvt Ltd 5. Nivedita Mercantile and Financing Ltd 6. Nifty Reality Pvt Ltd V 7. Amish Infrastrucure Pr Lid SunteckWealtimax Pvt Ltd 9. Naksh IT Solutions Pvt Ltd 10. Brown Trading.Pt Ltd In this regard these, entities you are requested to furnish following details/explanation: Nature of transaction with the said entity during F.Y. 2011 12 with all supporting documents. 2. Copy of ledger accounts of each entity for the F.Y. 2011 3. Copy of all bank account statement highlighting the transactions with the above entities. 4. You are requested to provide rational of transaction with relevant supporting documents and prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in respect of any sum found credited from above entities. 2. Copy of cash book for the year under consideration. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 15 In this regard these, entities you are requested to furnish Nature of transaction with the said entity during F.Y. 2011- 2. Copy of ledger accounts of each entity for the F.Y. 2011-12. 3. Copy of all bank account statement highlighting the 4. You are requested to provide rational of transaction with nts and prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in respect of 2. Copy of cash book for the year under consideration.” 8.3 The relevant reply filed by the assessee, available on page 39 of the paperbook is reproduced as under: “Point No. 4: details of transactions entered by the assessee company with below mention entities is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. 1. Viswas Finvest Pvt Ltd. 2. Satguru Capital. 3. Moonscape F 4. SW Capital Pvt Ltd. 5. Nivedita Merchantile and Financing Ltd. 6. Nifty Reality Pvt Ltd. 7. Amish Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. 8. Sunteck Wealthmax Pvt Ltd. 9. Naksh IT Solutions Pvt Ltd. 10. Brown Trading Pvt Ltd. In this regard 1. Nature of the transactions is of the loans with the said entity. 2. Copy of ledger accounts of each entity are enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. relevant reply filed by the assessee, available on page 39 the paperbook is reproduced as under: Point No. 4: details of transactions entered by the assessee company with below mention entities is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. 1. Viswas Finvest Pvt Ltd. 2. Satguru Capital. 3. Moonscape Facility Management Pt Ltd. 4. SW Capital Pvt Ltd. 5. Nivedita Merchantile and Financing Ltd. 6. Nifty Reality Pvt Ltd. 7. Amish Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. 8. Sunteck Wealthmax Pvt Ltd. 9. Naksh IT Solutions Pvt Ltd. 10. Brown Trading Pvt Ltd. In this regard these entities following details/explanation: 1. Nature of the transactions is of the loans with the said entity. 2. Copy of ledger accounts of each entity are enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 16 relevant reply filed by the assessee, available on page 39 Point No. 4: details of transactions entered by the assessee company with below mention entities is enclosed herewith for these entities following details/explanation: 1. Nature of the transactions is of the loans with the said entity. 2. Copy of ledger accounts of each entity are enclosed herewith 3. Copy of all bank account statements h transactions with above entities are enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records 4. Copy of bank statements and IT to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions are enclosed herewith for your ready reference and 5. Copy of cash book is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records Please find the same in order. We shall be glad to furnish you with any further details that you may require regarding this matter. In case your goodself is not accept submission of the assessee and are inclined to take a view different from the above, we pray that appropriate show cause may kindly be issued to the assessee citing the same and an opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee to rebut / respond to the same. 8.4 The Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of M/s Nivedita mercantile and financing Ltd there was opening debit balance of upon of the assessee. 8.5 We find that after filing of above submission by the assessee, no further enquiry either under section 133(6) for verification of the identity or their creditworthiness was carried out by the assessee, which he ought to have carried out in view of frequent fund transf in the bank statement of the assessee. Once the assessee filed all M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 3. Copy of all bank account statements h transactions with above entities are enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records 4. Copy of bank statements and IT to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions are enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. 5. Copy of cash book is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records Please find the same in order. We shall be glad to furnish you with any further details that you may require regarding this matter. In case your goodself is not accepting the above submission of the assessee and are inclined to take a view different from the above, we pray that appropriate show cause may kindly be issued to the assessee citing the same and an opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee to rebut / respond to the same.” Ld. counsel referred to page 81 of the paperbook and submitted that in the case of M/s Nivedita mercantile and financing Ltd there was opening debit balance of ₹2,80,24,806/ upon of the assessee. after filing of above submission by the assessee, no further enquiry either under section 133(6) for verification of the identity or their creditworthiness was carried out by the assessee, which he ought to have carried out in view of frequent fund transf in the bank statement of the assessee. Once the assessee filed all M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 17 3. Copy of all bank account statements highlighting transactions with above entities are enclosed herewith for your 4. Copy of bank statements and IT to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions are enclosed 5. Copy of cash book is enclosed herewith for your ready Please find the same in order. We shall be glad to furnish you with any further details that you may require regarding this ing the above submission of the assessee and are inclined to take a view different from the above, we pray that appropriate show cause may kindly be issued to the assessee citing the same and an opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee to rebut / referred to page 81 of the paperbook and submitted that in the case of M/s Nivedita mercantile and financing 806/- in the books after filing of above submission by the assessee, no further enquiry either under section 133(6) for verification of the identity or their creditworthiness was carried out by the assessee, which he ought to have carried out in view of frequent fund transfer in the bank statement of the assessee. Once the assessee filed all information with respect to identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, Officer and it was his turn to carry out inquiries or verification, but from the record, we find that no enquiry or verification has been carried out by the Assessing Officer. In view of above factual observations, we uphold t or verification which ought to have been carried out by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case, and due to failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in doing so, the assessment order passed is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly we uphold the finding of the PCIT on the issue in dispute. 8.6 Regarding the issue of limitation of invoking proceeding under section 263 the Act is considered Hon’bl case of Indira Industries taxmann.com 103 ( Madras) section 263 raises new issues, which are not subject matter of reassessment proceeding, then two years, section 263(2) would begin to run from the date of original assessment and not from the date of the reassessment. But in the instant case we find that the issue of credit in respect of all the 10 parties was noted in the reasons recorded itself cannot be said that credit from matter of reassessment proceeding. Accordingly, following the ratio M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. information with respect to identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, onus was shifted to the Assessing Officer and it was his turn to carry out inquiries or verification, but , we find that no enquiry or verification has been carried out by the Assessing Officer. In view of above factual , we uphold the finding of the Ld. PCIT that no enquiry or verification which ought to have been carried out by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case, and due to failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in doing so, the assed is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly we uphold the finding of the PCIT on the issue in dispute. Regarding the issue of limitation of invoking proceeding under is considered Hon’ble Madars High Court in the Industries Vs PCIT reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com 103 ( Madras) it is held that when a notice under section 263 raises new issues, which are not subject matter of ment proceeding, then two years, contemp section 263(2) would begin to run from the date of original assessment and not from the date of the reassessment. But in the instant case we find that the issue of credit in respect of all the 10 parties was noted in the reasons recorded itself and therefore it cannot be said that credit from said 10 parties was not subject matter of reassessment proceeding. Accordingly, following the ratio M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 18 information with respect to identity creditworthiness and was shifted to the Assessing Officer and it was his turn to carry out inquiries or verification, but , we find that no enquiry or verification has been carried out by the Assessing Officer. In view of above factual PCIT that no enquiry or verification which ought to have been carried out by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case, and due to failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in doing so, the assed is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly we uphold the finding of the Ld. Regarding the issue of limitation of invoking proceeding under e Madars High Court in the Vs PCIT reported in (2018) 95 it is held that when a notice under section 263 raises new issues, which are not subject matter of ontemplated under section 263(2) would begin to run from the date of original assessment and not from the date of the reassessment. But in the instant case we find that the issue of credit in respect of all the 10 and therefore it 10 parties was not subject matter of reassessment proceeding. Accordingly, following the ratio of the above decision, we are of the view that limitation section 263 in the case runs from t and not from the intimation under section 143(1) of the assessment completed prior to reassessment. 8.7 In view of above the ground accordingly dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 27/12/2022. Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/12/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. decision, we are of the view that limitation section 263 in the case runs from the date of reassessment order and not from the intimation under section 143(1) of the assessment completed prior to reassessment. In view of above the grounds raised by the assessee accordingly dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 12/2022. Sd/- RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 871/M/2022 19 decision, we are of the view that limitation for invoking he date of reassessment order and not from the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act i.e. raised by the assessee are by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, - OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai