REKHA KISHORE SHAH (LEGAL HEIR OF KISHOR DHIRAJLAL SHAH ),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee, directed against the order of Commissioner of income tax appeals (for short “ld. CIT(A)”), NFAC, New
Delhi dated 09.01.2025, for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises from the assessment order dated 30.05.2023, passed by Assistant
Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajipal Shah)
2
Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-42(1)(1), Mumbai (for short “Ld. AO”)) under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Short “The Act”).
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in the present appeal reads as under:
“Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, this appeal petition is submitted on the following grounds which it is prayed may be considered independently and without prejudice to one another-
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 is bad-in-law.
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment proceedings as valid without appreciating that the learned AO had not disposed off the specific objections raised (Year of purchase & ownership of the three Galas) by the appellant that the reasons for alleged against reasons recorded for reopening while passing order u/s 148A(d). Thus the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that this being in gross violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., the reopening of assessment is bad in law and needs to be quashed.
2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s, 147 as valid merely based on the incorrect information available on record without due application of mind to the facts of the case.
3. Without prejudice to the above and strictly without admitting, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that initiation of reopening proceedings u/s 148A/148 for the year in which the agreement is registered and not for the year of allotment of the said properties can at the most be considered to be a debatable issue. Thus the learned AO erred in not appreciating that no reopening proceedings can be initiated u/s 148A/ 148 on account of change in opinion, thereby the entire additions made must be deleted.
Addition u/s. 56(2) (vii)(b) of Rs. 21,62,000/- should be deleted.
Without prejudice to the above and without admitting, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in not appreciating that the appellant had acquired the impugned immovable property vide allotment letter dated 20-04-2011 whereas the agreement of sale and registration was done on 31-03-2017. Thus the learned AO erred in applying the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b) to AY 2017-18 instead in AY 2012-13 without appreciating the proviso to the said section. Thus additions made of Rs 21,62,000/- is bad-in-law and needs to be deleted.
Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajipal Shah)
3
The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.”
It is informed that the instant appeal is defective on the ground of limitation being filed with a delay of 100 days. A condonation petition along with affidavit signed by the assessee, stating the reasons for delay are filed before us. It is explained that the all the notices u/s 250 of the Act were served to the assessee and have been duly responded, however the order was not served on the registered email Id, neither any physical copy was served to assessee. Passing of CIT(A)’s order dated 09-01-2025 was came to the notice of assessee, only on receipt of communication from JAO vide letter dated 25.06.2025. It is mentioned that the delay was occurred solely due to the fact that the impugned order was never served on the assessee. It is also submitted that as per various decisions merely uploading the communications on e-portal does not constitute a valid service. In view of such explanations, it is prayed to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Considering the aforesaid request of the assessee, having sufficient unintentional / undeliberate reasons for delay beyond the control of assessee, in absence of any serious objection by the revenue, following the judicial principle to deal with the matter of condonation of delay with a liberal and justice-oriented approach, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in present matter to decide the same on its merits. The delay in filing of present appeal thus have been condoned. Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajipal Shah)
4
Brief Facts of the case, as per Para 3 & 4 of the CIT(A) are extracted as under: “3. Brief facts of the case as per the order of of the AO are as under:- The appellant has filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 11.10.2017 showing total income of Rs. 2,57,25,980/-. The case was selected on the following issue as under:- "Information was received from the DIT (I&CI), Mumbai. As per the information received, the Directorate has collected data from various Sub