MAHENDRA VISHNU CHITRE,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT 22 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWALAssessment Year: 2015-2016
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072074880(1), dated 10.01.2025 passed against the assessment order by Assessment Unit, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 14.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 Mahendra Vishnu Chitre AY 2015-2016
Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that reopening of assessment of the appellant is invalid in law.
On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that since the impugned notices under section 148, 148A(b) & 148A(d) have been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer, the subsequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is null and void.
On facts in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that since the posession of the property has continued to be with the appellant and no development activity has taken place, there is no transfer of tenancy right under the permenant alternate accommodation agreement.
On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Rs.90,90,708/- by the Assessing Officer , as short term capital gain.
On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have taxed the capital gain as long term capital gain and correspondingly allowed exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest charged of Rs.21,65,778/- u/s 234A and Rs.28,87,704/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. In accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on the insight portal of the Department, information available with the ld. Assessing Officer was that assessee had purchased an immovable property valued at Rs.90,90,708/-, registered with Joint Sub-