TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate a/w Sham Walve a/w Sameer Dalal a/w Bhavik Chheda, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mrs. Swapna Gokhale, Advocate. P. C. 1. The above 16 Income Tax Appeals are filed by the Appellant - assessee being aggrieved by the order dated 28th February 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "G" Bench Mumbai (for short "ITAT") for 8 Assessment Years (for short "A.Y.") i.e. 2013-14 to 2020-21, disposing of income tax appeals and cross objections, filed before the ITAT by both the Revenue and the Appellant-assessee. The Appellant has also filed 8 Interim Applications for Stay relating to each of the eight A.Ys. in question. 2. There are several common issues involved in all the Appeals and hence Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on account of unsecured loans. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [for short "CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) passed a common order dated 27th July 2022 for the assessment years abovementioned, deleting the disallowance of bogus purchases relating to some parties and restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to 5% for remaining parties. As regards the addition under Section 68 was concerned, the CIT(A) deleted the whole addition. 5. Against the CIT(A) order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Ld. ITAT and the Appellant-assessee also filed cross objections. The Appellant argued that the assessment under Section 153A of the Act was time barred and that even otherwise,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N on the Assessment Order. 7. This apart, according to the Appellant, the Ld. ITAT reversed the findings of the CIT(A) relating to bogus purchases despite the fact that the Ld. ITAT in the case of Hitech Engineers, a group concern of the Appellant, under identical circumstances, had deleted the addition on alleged bogus purchases. In other words, in the present case, the Ld. ITAT took a diametrically opposite view to the one taken by it in the case of Hitech Engineers, and whih was a group concern of the Appellant. 8. Insofar as the addition under Section 68 of the Act is concerned, the Ld. ITAT reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and restored the additions made by the Assessing Officer in case of some parties and restored the issue back ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration. Firstly, it is the Appellant's case that arguments regarding the issue of DIN was not dealt with by the Ld. ITAT in its order dated 28th February 2023 and that the Assessment Order is unsustainable as it is contrary to the CBDT's Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019. Secondly, it is argued that the ITAT has incorrectly recorded that the Appellant had not brought on record any evidence that the Assessment Order was received beyond the expiry of limitation, despite the fact that the Appellant had attached screenshots of the Income Tax Portal along with the Written Submissions showing that the Assessment Order was not uploaded even on 1st October 2021. Thirdly, it is argued that the Appellant will show that the Ld. IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is no DIN appearing on the assessment order, they have by some other means, complied with the CBDT's Circular No. 19 of 2019 relating to DIN and that they may be permitted to bring on record the facts/procedure adopted by them to show that the said Circular was followed. Further, it is also their case that they will demonstrate that the Impugned order is proper and all issues have been duly considered by Ld. ITAT. 15. However, without going into the merits of the arguments on both sides, it is clear beyond doubt that the issue of DIN has not been considered or dealt with at all in the Impugned Orders disposing of the appeals. It is expressly clarified that the cause/reason for the same have not been gone into. This is a matter which goes t....