SHANENOK NEVIS ,MALAD MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4457 and 4458/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shanenok Nevis Deputy Commissioner Of F 206 Palm Court Link Road Income Tax, Malad West Mumbai, Circle – 17(1), Mumbai – 400064 Vs. Mumbai Maharashtra (PAN: AEEPN1985M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Advocate Revenue : Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2026 O R D E R PER BENCH: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre vide No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086165215(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086165544(1), both dated 18.02.2026 passed against the assessment order by Assessment unit of the Income Tax Department, u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 14.12.2023 and 27.05.2024 respectively, for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2 ITA Nos. 4457 and 4458/Mum/2026 Shanenok Nevis AY 2015-16

ITA No. 4457/MUM/2026 1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as `Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in passing the order dated 18.02.2026 upholding the action of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred, to as `Ld. AO'] in passing the assessment order dated 14.12.2023 under section 147 r.w.s 144B read with section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] determining total income of the Appellant at Rs.79,96,500I- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant strongly objects to the impugned order passed by NFAC as the same is illegal, arbitrary and perverse on the following, amongst other grounds, which are urged without prejudice against one another: - 2. Impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act dismissing the appeal on technical 6i-ounds of limitation is had in law (i) Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order under section 250 of the Act dismissing the appeal of the Appellant merely on technical grounds of limitation, without dealing with the issue raised, is against the settled principles of law. The Appellant, therefore, prays that impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and the same may be quashed and set aside. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant is prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the present appeal within limitation provided under section 253(1) of the Act. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was not deliberate and therefore, impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without any basis and the same may be deleted. 3. Notice issued under section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) fell in error of law in upholding the action of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in issuing the notice dated 22.04.2022 under section 148 of the Act in contravention of provisions of section 151A of the Act. The Appellant, Therefore, prays that the notice issued under section 148 as well as the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of Act in pursuance to the said notice are against the well settled provisions of law and the same may be quashed and set aside. b. The Ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the impugned property was purchased jointly in the name of Appellant and his wife. Thus, the Appellant is only 50% owner in the impugned property. Thus, the impugned notice issued under section 148 is barred as per provision of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellant, therefore, prays that impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and hence, the same may be quashed.

3 ITA Nos. 4457 and 4458/Mum/2026 Shanenok Nevis AY 2015-16

ITA No. 4458/MUM/2026 1. Impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act dismissing the appeal on technical grounds of limitation is bad in law (i) Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order under section 250 of the Act dismissing the appeal of the Appellant merely on technical grounds of limitation, without dealing with the issue raised, is against the settled principles of law. The

4 ITA Nos. 4457 and 4458/Mum/2026 Shanenok Nevis AY 2015-16

Appellant, therefore, prays that impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(.A), is bad in law and the same may be quashed and set aside. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to recognise that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the limitation period. Given that the delay was not deliberate, dismissal of the appeal on liminal grounds is unjustified and same deserves to be set aside. 2. Levy of Penalty under section '271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified - Rs.23,53,293/- (i) Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty of Rs.23,53,293/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned penalty order is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the consideration paid for purchase of residential flat was from his known sources and the Appellant has furnished all the details and documentary evidence to prove the same. The Appellant had also furnished an explanation to justify the nature and source of investment which has not been doubted by Ld. AO. Hence, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the Appellant is not at all justified and the same may be deleted. 3. Levy of penalty on commission/brokerage income is unjustified The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty on the addition made by treating the commission / brokerage income under the head income from other sources without appreciating that the Appellant had already declared the commission / brokerage income in the return of income filed. Thus, the addition made under the head income from other sources is not at all justified. The Appellant, therefore, prays that levy of penalty on such addition is not at all justified and the same may be deleted.

2.1. One appeal is for the quantum addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer and the other on account of penalty imposed on the additions so made.

5 ITA Nos. 4457 and 4458/Mum/2026 Shanenok Nevis AY 2015-16

during the course of the appellate proceedings and, consequently, was deprived of an adequate opportunity of presenting its case before the learned CIT(A). It has, therefore, submitted before us to provide for an opportunity by remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication in the interest of substantial justice after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing.

6 ITA Nos. 4457 and 4458/Mum/2026 Shanenok Nevis AY 2015-16

affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings. Since the appeal pertains to an old assessment year and has already remained pending for a considerable period, and further the matter is being restored on account of the bona fide reasons explained by the assessee without adjudication on merits, we deem it appropriate to observe that the learned CIT(A) shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues involved and all contentions are left open.

Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated: 25 June, 2026 MP, Sr.P.S.

7 ITA Nos. 4457 and 4458/Mum/2026 Shanenok Nevis AY 2015-16

Copy to : 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 Guard File 5 CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sr. Details Date Initial Designation No. 1. Draft dictated on Sr.PS/PS 2. Draft Placed before Sr.PS/PS author 3. Draft proposed & placed JM/AM before the Second Member 4. Draft JM/AM discussed/approved by Second Member 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS/PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Order pronouncement 25.06.2026 Sr.PS/PS on 7. File sent to the Bench 29.06.2026 Sr.PS/PS Clerk 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9. Date on which file goes to the AR 10. Date of Dispatch of order