INDEX LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, () & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ()
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 20/10/2023 for assessment year 2021-22 on following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld.CIT(A)"] erred in passing the impugned order dated
20.10.2023
in Appeal
No.
CIT(A)-47,
Mumbai/10019/2020-21
dismissing the appeal filed by Appellant and confirming the order dated
05.10.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,
Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "AO"] under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the 2
ITA No 4641/Mum/2023 AY 2021-22
M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited
"Act"] in the case of M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant"] for Assessment Year [hereinafter referred to as the "A.Y."] 2021-22, assessing the income of the Appellant at ?
12,76,14,960 as against the total income of ?8,62,15,050 declared by the Appellant in its return of income, because the assessment proceedings resulting in the passing of the assessment order were initiated consequent upon a search u/s. 132 of the Act conducted at the premises of the Appellant, 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 and was mala fide as evident from the manner of conduct of search.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by Appellant and confirming the order dated 05.10.2022 passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, because the order has been passed without proper application of mind and without appreciating the facts of the case.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of ?1,99,80,518 made by the AO 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 sales pertaining to walk-in customers had duly been included in income and offered for taxation and even when the provisions of sections 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of ?2,14,19,394 made by the AO under section 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability, because the addition has been made on mere surmises and conjectures and without providing any opportunity to the Appellant, which is against the settled principles of natural justice.
The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”
The brief facts of the case that the assessee is a domestic private company registered with the