Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) that upheld a reassessment order. The NFAC's order was based on a reassessment that the assessee argued was impermissible as it led to parallel proceedings on the same income as the original assessment. The assessee also claimed that the reassessment order failed to consider the explanation for the investment in the "Cosmopolis" flat.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) because notices were not received on the provided email address. Due to this lack of effective representation and reasonable cause, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid given that the original assessment was under appeal and no fresh income was determined. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
Date of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 10.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2017-18. The following grounds are reproduced below:
“Ground No. 1: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ie 2 Jayesh Harish Naroliwala CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre ie NFAC vide order dated 10.10.2025 has erred in upholding the re- assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 1448 dated 26.05.2023 wherein the assessed income of Rs. 1,35,74,920 was determined, being the same as determined in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2019. The appellant has already filed appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A) against the original assessment order u/s 143(3) and the appeal is still pending till date. Thus, the action of the Ld. AO in re-opening the assessment by passing order u/s 147 r.w.s 1448 and subsequently, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A)/NFAC are bad in law as it has resulted in parallel proceedings on the same assessed income, which is impermissible. Ground No. 2: Pursuant to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above ground, the appellant case was re-opened in relation to the purchase of the Cosmopolis Flat in 2010. However, both the Ld. AO in the re-assessment order u/s 147 and the Hon'ble NFAC/CIT(A) u/s 250 have erroneously retained the assessed, income as determined in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2019 without examining the issue for which the assessment was reopened. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in upholding the re- assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B dated 26.05.2023, wherein the appellant had already explained the source of investment in Cosmopolis Flat vide the appellant submission dated 27.02.2023 but the same was not considered by the Ld. AO.
Ground No. 4: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in upholding the decision of the Ld. AO without application of mind and completely misunderstanding the facts of the case and erroneously considering the same assessed income as determined in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2019, 3 Jayesh Harish Naroliwala without examining the issue for which the assessment was reopened. Ground No. 5: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in upholding the re- assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B dated 26.05.2023, wherein the Ld. AO in relation to the "Cosmopolis" flat has incorrectly treated the date of registration of the purchase agreement i.e 13.04.2016 as the date of acquisition of the property and completely ignoring the facts that the appellant had acquired and taken possession of the property on 11.05.2010 as per the Letter of Allotment. The Ld. AO treating the property as a short-term capital asset and denied the appellant indexation benefit and incorrectly computed capital gains by comparing the sale consideration (Rs. 1,80,56,000) with the actual purchase cost of Rs. 59,70,000. Further, the Ld. AO considered the assessed income as per the order u/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2019 without fresh consideration of the facts.”
From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained that no notices were received by the assessee on the e-mail address mentioned in Form-35. Whereas on enquiries assessee came to know that the notices were served upon different address and requested that opportunity be provided to substantiate his case before Ld. CIT(A) and requested for restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.
On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that 4 Jayesh Harish Naroliwala there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.