← Back to search

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), MUMBAI

PDF
ITA 4287/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 July 202518 pages

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, () & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ()

Hearing: 15.04.2025Pronounced: 09.07.2025

Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A)-
47, Mumbai dated 28/09/2023 for assessment year 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 1 earned
Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-47. Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld.CIT(A)] erred in passing the impugned order dated 28.09. 2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-47 Mumbai/10423/2019-20 dismissing the appeal filed by Appellant and confirming the order dated 07.09.2022
passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(2),
Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 2
ITA No 4286/Mum/2023 AY 2020-21
Mr. Ismail Muhammad Khan the "Act"], because the assessment proceedings resulting in the passing of the assessment order were initiated consequent upon a search under section 132 of the Act conducted at the residential premises of Mr.
Ismail Muhammad Khan [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant" at 53,
C-Wing. Rustomji Central Park CHSL. Andheri Kurla Road. Mumbai-93, which itself was illegal invalid and hence void ab initio, because the search was conducted without the conditions specified in section 132 of the Act being fulfilled. was mala tide as evident from the manner of conduct of search and was a gross and serious violation of the fundamental rights of the Appellant

2.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 28.09.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai/10423/2019-20 dismissing the appeal filed by Appellant and confirming the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 1534 of the Act, whereby the total income of the Appellant for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "A.Y."] 2020-21 was assessed at 24.62,05,480 as against the total income of ₹86.35.770 declared by the Appellant in his return of income.

3.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 28.09.2023 in Appcal No CIT(A)-47. Mumbai/10423/2019-20 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the AD. because the assessment order is barred by limitation and is therefore invalid and non est

4.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 28.09 2023 in Appeal No. CITIA)-47 Mumbai/10423/2019-20 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of 27,42,710 made by the AO on protective basis under section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure, allegedly being withdrawals made from the bank account of M/s. Transx’ unlawfully assumed as to be as per the directions of the Appellant, even when the provisions of sections 690 and 1158BE are not applicable in the case.

5.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 28.09.2023 in Appeal No CIT(A)-47, Mumbai/10423/2019-20 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of 23.68.26.996 made by the AO on protective basis under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from walk-in customers, because the addition has been confirmed without appreciating the facts and even when the provisions of sections 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case.

3
ITA No 4286/Mum/2023 AY 2020-21
Mr. Ismail Muhammad Khan

6.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is Managing Director of M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "ILPL"), which is a domestic private company registered with the

MR ISMAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), MUMBAI | BharatTax