MOHAMED FAROOK FAKIR MOHAMED,KHARGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PANVEL, PANVEL

Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the sanction granted u/s.151 of the Act dated 27.03.2024 by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Thane-1 was neither digitally signed nor physically signed, and therefore does not constitute a valid sanction in the eyes of law. Appellant submits that the absence of a valid sanction renders the Order u/s.148A(d), notice issued u/s.148 and the consequent reassessment proceedings void ab initio.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the alleged sanction u/s.151 was granted in a mechanical manner without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Appellant submits that such mechanical approval vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order deserves to be quashed as void ab initio

Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the Notice u/s.148 and Order u/s.148A(d) both dated 28.03.2024, which were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ["JAO"] instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer ["FAO"] as mandated under the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. Appellant submits that the said notice and order are without jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment proceedings void.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that Ld. AO completed the reassessment without issuing and serving the statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Appellant submits that issuance of notice u/s.143(2) is a jurisdictional requirement, failure of which renders the assessment void ab initio.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the appellate order u/s.250 dated 02.01.2026 without providing the Appellant an effective opportunity of being heard. Appellant submits that not even a single hearing notice was issued, and therefore the impugned order is passed in violation of section 250 and principles of natural justice, and is liable to be set aside.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessment Order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B without appreciating that the Ld. AO passed the order without properly considering the submissions filed by Appellant and without disposing of the objections raised, thereby passing a non-speaking order in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that section 56(2)(vii)(b) ceased to apply after 01.04.2017, having been replaced by section 56(2)(x). Appellant submits that the addition made under the repealed provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) in AY 2020-21 is without jurisdiction and liable to be deleted

Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,42,558/- made by the Ld. AO u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 31,42,558/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) made by Ld. AO, without appreciating that Ld. AO ought to have considered Stamp Duty value as per the Previous Year of Agreement when consideration was fixed and part payment was made i.e. PY 2014-15, as per First and Second Proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) or to Section 56(2)(x)(b). Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the addition of Rs 31,42,558/- to total income of Appellant u/s 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be deleted.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,42,558/- u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) without directing Ld. AO to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer, as contemplated under the first proviso to section 56(2)(vii) / the third proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b).

Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,99,000/- made by Ld. AO u/s. 69 of the Act. Appellant submits that the investment stands fully explained with supporting evidence during the reassessment proceedings, and therefore the addition is unjustified and liable to be deleted.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. AO ought to have passed Order w/s.147.r.w.s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act instead of passing Order 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act deserves to be quashed.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming Order passed by Ld. AO uw/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. Appellant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, Order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Appellant prays for appropriate relief. Each of the above grounds of Appeal is without prejudice to one another. Appellant craves leave, to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above Grounds of Appeal.”