SAHANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee raising following grounds:

1. THAT the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as under the circumstances of the case in wrongly considering the strategic investments made by your appellant in subsidiary companies that have same business activities in which your appellant principally dealt in accordance to its Memorandum of Association as Investments not in the nature of Business activities. 2.

2. THAT the Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as under the circumstances of the case in disallowing the interest expenses of Rs.6,35,95,000/- under section 36(1)(iii) which is against the facts of the case.

Sahana Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 1959/Mum/2023

at the time of hearing of appeal. grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that this appeal has been filed mistakenly with the ITAT instead of this appeal has been filed mistakenly with the ITAT instead of this appeal has been filed mistakenly with the ITAT instead of Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and therefore, the assessee therefore, the assessee seeks to withdraw the same. thdraw the same.

3. We find that in the grounds raised, the assessee We find that in the grounds raised, the assessee We find that in the grounds raised, the assessee has challenged addition made by the Assessing Officer. Further in Form challenged addition made by the Assessing Officer. Further in Form challenged addition made by the Assessing Officer. Further in Form No. 36 also we note that date of the order mentioned is the No. 36 also we note that date of the order mentioned is the No. 36 also we note that date of the order mentioned is the assessment order however section has been mistakenly mentioned assessment order however section has been mistakenly mentioned assessment order however section has been mistakenly mentioned as section 263. Actually, the order challenged is the consequent as section 263. Actually, the order challenged is the consequ as section 263. Actually, the order challenged is the consequ assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer to the order u/s assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer to the order u/s assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer to the order u/s 263 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax. As per the 263 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income 263 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income provisions of the Act , t provisions of the Act , the order passed by the Assessing Officer he order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act can be challenged before the lenged before the Ld. CIT(A) and not before the ITAT and therefore, this appeal is not Ld. CIT(A) and not before the ITAT and therefore, this appeal is not Ld. CIT(A) and not before the ITAT and therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. As the assessee has withdrawn the appeal therefore, maintainable. As the assessee has withdrawn the appeal therefore maintainable. As the assessee has withdrawn the appeal therefore same is treated as un un-admitted. Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 08/09/2023. /09/2023. Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 08/09/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Sahana Construction Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1959/Mum/2023