DCIT CC 52, MUMBAI vs. SP ELECTROSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

These are the cross appeals pertaining to the Assessment Year 2019- 2020, arising from the Order dated 15.09.2025, passed by the ITA No. 8058 and 8182/Mum/2025 Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) 53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30.01.2025, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing statutory notices in the name of the non-existing entity, making the assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the impugned assessment order in the name of the non-existing entity, making the assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant which is bad in law, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment which is in violation to the clause (b) of sub section (1) to section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of a mechanical approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the order u/s 147 based on mechanical approval u/s 148B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Addition on account of Gross profit on alleged unaccounted cash sales:-

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in relying on the statements of employees/promoters of the appellant group recorded during the course of search action, despite the fact that such statements were subsequently retracted, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in relying on the statements of third parties recorded during the course of search action, despite the fact that such statements were subsequently retracted, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in relying on contents of certain tally data which was found and seized from the premises of a third party, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in holding that the appellant has made unaccounted cash sales of Rs.41.79 Crs. in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in arriving at a figure of Rs.41.79 Crs. being unaccounted cash sales made by the appellant which is incorrect and liable to be reduced, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition made by the Id. A.O. on account of alleged unaccounted cash sales made by the appellant by applying a gross profit rate of 1.72% amounting to Rs. 71,83,507/-, for the reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in making an addition of gross profit @1.72% on the alleged unaccounted cash sales made by the appellant, for the reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise. The Appellant submits that the aforesaid gross profit rate as computed by the ld. AO being excessive on facts and prays that the same be suitably reduced.

The Appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.”

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

We know that in the present case, the assessment was placed on the Assessee u/s 143(3) Read With Section 147 of the Act, vide the Assessment Order dated 30.01.2025, pursuant to the issuance of Notice u/s 148 of the Act. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee invited our attention to the Letter dated 27.04.2026. The relevant extract of which reads as under: ”It is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has quashed the notice u/s 148 of the Act by stating the same is issued by JAO (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) instead of FAO (Faceless Assessing Officer) following the decision of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v/s ACIT [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)].

The Assessee has also placed on record, the decision of the Hon’ble Tax – 5(2), Mumbai & Ors. Whereby the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was placed to set aside the Notice issued u/s 148 and all the proceedings in the order emanating there from pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. 6. Accordingly, therefore, the present ground of appeals have been rendered infructuous and are therefore dismissed.

In the result, the cross appeals, the appeal preferred by the Assessee (ITA No. 8058/Mum/2025) and the Appeal preferred by the Revenue (ITA No. 8182/Mum/2025) for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 are dismissed.

"धान आयकर आयु" / Pr.CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR,

ITAT, Mumbai गाड" फाईल 6. / Guard file.