AYESHABEE BABU KHAN,MANKHURED vs. ITO 27 1 1 MUMBAI, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 2887/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to comply with Section 249(4) of the Act and seek exemption.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for AY 2016-17. Based on NMS portal information, the AO noted sale and purchase of immovable property and initiated reassessment. The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee was admissible before the CIT(A) when the return of income was not filed and advance tax was not paid. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to comply with statutory provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 249(4),Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYASHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
For Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 06.11.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, 2

a. The JAO erred in Reopening the case u/s 148A whereas it was to be done by the FAO and therefore notice u/s. 148 is bad in law. b. The JAO took sale value of same flat of Rs. 49 lacs twice

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →