M/S PARVESH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12
PER BENCH
These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 12.03.2025, passed by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [in short ‗the Ld. CIT(A)‘] for assessment years 2009-
M/s Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd
10 and 2011-12 respectively. As common issues-in-dispute are involved in these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for sake of convenience.
2. Firstly, we take up the appeal for A.Y. 2009-2010. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.
CIT(A) has erred by dismissing the ground that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. A.O. u/s 147 of the 1. T. Act, 1961
and issuing the notice u/s 148 of the 1. T. Act, 1961 since the same is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by dismissing the ground that the notice issued by the Ld. A.O. u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 merely on the basis of information received by his office from ROC which is nothing more than borrowed satisfaction as there was no independent finding of the Ld. A.O. before issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. while recording the reasons has stated that shares of Rs. 100 were issued at share premium of Rs. 9,900 and that this investment does not appear to backed by fundamentals of the assessee company as per its balance sheet as on 31 March 2009. Thus, the Ld. A.O. referred to income escaping assessment u/s 56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act, 1961; whereas no addition was made in the reassessment order u/s 56(2)(viib). The said issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble 1714 of 2009 and the decision of Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay). Thus, the reassessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law as there is no addition in respect such Alleged transaction
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had initiated the reassessment proceedings by alleging that the appellant company had received share premium from M/s Mangal Sago Pvt. Ltd. whereas no addition in respect of the alleged transaction was made by the Ld. A.O. while passing the reassessment order and the Ld. A.O. has independently assessed
M/s Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd other income which was not part of reasons recorded. The said action of the Ld. A.O. is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had made addition in respect of share premium of Rs. 30,69,00,000/- u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 without understanding the fact that no addition in respect of share premium received from M/s Mangal Sago Pvt Ltd. was made which was part of reasons recorded on basis of which reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Ld. A.O. The said issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble 1714 of 2009 and the decision of Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay). The said action of the Ld. A.O. is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had made addition in respect of advances received of Rs. 11,71,40,000/- u/s 68 of the 1. T. Act, 1961 without understanding the fact that no addition in respect of share premium received from M/s Mangal Sago Pvt Ltd. was made which was part of reasons recorded on basis of which reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Ld. A.O. The said issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble 1714 of 2009 and the decision of Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay). The said action of the Ld. A.O. is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had erred by making disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 4,768/- whereas the appellant had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration and without understanding the fact that no addition in respect of share premium received from M/s Mangal Sago Pvt Ltd. was made which was part of reasons recorded on basis of which reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Ld. A.O. The said issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Limited, ITA no. 1714 of 2009 and the decision of Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay). The said action of the Ld. A.O. is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. had erred by disallowing the F & O loss amounting to Rs. 1,43,42,244/- by alleging that F & O loss is speculation loss without understanding the fact that no addition in respect of share premium received from M/s Mangal Sago Pvt Ltd. was made which was part of reasons recorded on basis of which reassessment proceedings were M/s Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd initiated by the Ld. A.O. The said issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Limited, ITA no. 1714 of 2009 and the decision of Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay). The said action of the Ld. A.O. is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by not allowing an opportunity of cross examination with the concerned persons with whom the appellant had done transactions related to share premium and loans and advances. In this regard, the appellant relies on following decisions: ii. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, Mumbai (Bombay High Court) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bombay). 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds till the disposal of the Appeal.”
The brief facts, as gathered from the record, are that the assessee, a company engaged in the business of construction and real estate development, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.09.2009, declaring total income of ₹82,550/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3.1 Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Office of the