ROHAN HEMANT THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22 3 2, MUMBAI

ITA 7105/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 April 20267 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of a mere change of opinion by the AO, without any new tangible material. The AO had already examined the issue of the property's acquisition date and treated the gain as long-term capital gain in the original assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on the sale of a building, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as short-term capital gain during reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148. The AO's order and the CIT(A)'s confirmation were challenged by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 were valid, or based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, and if the capital gain was rightly treated as short-term.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 54F,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

For Appellant: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Hearing: 27.01.2026Pronounced: 17.04.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal

Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'),

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals erred in confirming assessing capital gain of Rs.5662500/- on sale of capital assets as short term capital gain instea

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →