HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings was not followed by the Revenue, the assessment order, dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 147 of the Act by following the un- amended provisions contained in Section 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Act is hereby quashed as being bad in law. 16. However, we note that in the present case the aforesaid Assessment Years

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings was not followed by the Revenue, the assessment order, dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 147 of the Act by following the un- amended provisions contained in Section 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Act is hereby quashed as being bad in law. 16. However, we note that in the present case the aforesaid Assessment Years

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

u/s 69C of the Act holding them as business expenditure of the assessee on the issue of out of books cash expenditures (murrum expenses) and considering that an addition of 5% of such murrum expenses as business income would suffice instead of the entire addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. 5 J Kumar Infraprojects

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

u/s. 153C”. On the other hand, only the Assessing Officer of other person, other than Assessing Officer of searched person can say and write “Issue notice u/s. 153C” 2.35. The above facts reflects that neither satisfaction note was issued by the Assessing Officer in his capacity as a 57 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

u/s. 153C”. On the other hand, only the Assessing Officer of other person, other than Assessing Officer of searched person can say and write “Issue notice u/s. 153C” 2.35. The above facts reflects that neither satisfaction note was issued by the Assessing Officer in his capacity as a 57 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

u/s. 153C”. On the other hand, only the Assessing Officer of other person, other than Assessing Officer of searched person can say and write “Issue notice u/s. 153C” 2.35. The above facts reflects that neither satisfaction note was issued by the Assessing Officer in his capacity as a 57 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis

HASHMAT ISHAQ PARKER,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

282A having not been followed while issuing the notice u/s 148 the same is invalid. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash KrishnaraoBharadwaj (Copy enclosed) where in the High Court, in connection with unsigned notice u/s 148, has held that such unsigned notice, either physically or digitally invalid

HASHMAT ISHAQ PARAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α No.4071/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2015-16 Ι.Τ.Α. No.3973/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2018-19 Hashmat Ishaq Parker Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Furus, Tal-Khed, District- Ratnagiri, Maharashtra- 415710 Pan : Αχορρ1815Η Appellant Income Tax Office, Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai-400051 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee By Challenging The Order Of The Nfac Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Cit(A)'] Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act), Date Of Order 20/12/2024 & 06/12/2024 Related To Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Impugned Orders Emanated From The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Ratinagiri (For Brevity, ‘The Ld.Ao') Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act, Date Of Orders 20/03/2023 & 21/03/2023 For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19. 2. Since All The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Involving Similar Issues Arising Out Of A Similar Factual Matrix, These Appeals Were Heard Together As A Matter Of Convenience & Are Being Decided By Way Of This Consolidated Order. With The Consent Of The Parties, The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Treated As A Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal For Ay 2018-19 Before Us.

147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBALST/F/145A/2021-22/1042272737(1) dated 31/03/2022 and annexed herewith for reference. 1. therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other, allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2021 on 16.04.2021, which is barred by limitation as per the provision of section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also in violation of provisions of section 282A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, if Hon'ble ITAT concludes that the impugned Notices were issued

M/S. DEVISHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

147 r.w.s 144B of the I. T. Act, 1961 without understanding the facts and circumstances of the case, since the same is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. J.A.O. has erred by initiating the Inquiry Proceedings u/s 148A of the 1. T. Act, 1961 since

M/S. DEVISHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

147 r.w.s 144B of the I. T. Act, 1961 without understanding the facts and circumstances of the case, since the same is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. J.A.O. has erred by initiating the Inquiry Proceedings u/s 148A of the 1. T. Act, 1961 since