SHASHI HARIKISHAN GOSWAMI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1860/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi had failed to adjudicate two main issues despite detailed submissions, merely reproducing the assessment order and the appellant's submissions on one issue. The Tribunal directed the NFAC Delhi to consider all written submissions, provide an opportunity to the appellant, and pass a speaking order on the unadjudicated issues.

What were the facts?

The appellant's grievance was that the CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi did not adjudicate two crucial issues: the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148/147 and the addition of deemed rental income. The appellant argued that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and that family members residing in different flats should be considered as one unit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, including the reopening of assessment and the addition of deemed rental income, or failed to adjudicate crucial issues, necessitating a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Pronounced: 26/06/2025

From the grounds of appeal, in this case it is observed that the grievance of appellant is that, Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has not adjudicated two issues :- i) The reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Act and passing an order under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. And to be quashed. ii) The Ld. NFAC, Delhi/Ld.CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the main issue of deemed rental income added by Ld. AO on merits.

2.

The grievance of the appellant is that detailed grounds of appeal and written submissions were made to the NFAC, Delhi about the reopening of assessment as well as making an addition of Rs. 51,43,460/- as deemed rental income. The Ld. AR of the appellant pleads that the family members of appellant are residing in three different flats situated in different floors and they should be taken as one unit. Despite making detailed submissions

2 Shashi Harikishan Goswami about three issues/additions made by Ld. AO, only one issue relating to rental income admitted in subsequent year was adjudicated where relief was given to appellant. The other two issues were not adjudicated by NFAC Delhi, is the main grievance of appellant.

3.

Before the Bench, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). The appellant filed a detailed paper book containing several facts and cases-law for the proposition that the reopening of assessment is invalid because the Ld. AO reopened the same based on change of opinion and no new facts have come to light and also there is full disclosure of facts at the time of original assessment itself. Hence, it was argued that the reopening of assessment should be quashed as bad in law. As far as merits are concerned, the Ld. AR of the appellant has stated that the appellant was allotted four flats in four floors, but they should be taken as one portion even though three flats in different floors were occupied by family members.

4.

Heard both sides and perused the paper book filed by Ld. AR of the appellant. From the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi, it is observed that despite the detailed grounds and written submissions of appellant, the crucial issues of reopening the assessment and detailed arguments on merits with respect to deemed rental income were not adjudicated. In the entire appeal order which is very long running into 28 pages, is basically reproduction of assessment order and submissions of Ld. AR and decision was rendered on only one issue, instead of three issues. The two main issues were not adjudicated. The Ld. AR has submitted that even before Ld. AO, proper opportunity was not given. The written submissions were filed on 21.3.2022 and the assessment order was passed on 23.3.2022 and the written submissions dated 21.3.2022 were not considered by Ld. AO while passing the order. The Ld. CIT(A) has got sufficient time and opportunity to deal with all these issues, but just reproduced the assessment order and submissions of Ld. AR of the appellant but failed to adjudicate two main

3 Shashi Harikishan Goswami issues as mentioned above. This casual approach of Ld. NFAC is not correct and unnecessarily appellant is forced to file further appeal to ITAT. As the Ld. NFAC, Delhi has not adjudicated these two issues of reopening of assessment and deemed rental value. The NFAC Delhi, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to take all written submissions into consideration, give proper opportunity to the appellant and pass a speaking order on both the issues at the earliest because for no fault of appellant, she is put to inconvenience of filing of further appeal. This attitude of non-adjudication of issues raised before him should be avoided in future. The two issues which were not adjudicated are remitted to the file of NFAC, Delhi.

5.

The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/06/2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →