INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25.1.1,MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs J M FINACIAL PROPERTY FUND II, MUMBAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/Fenil, Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Hearing: 24/07/2024

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:

J M Finanical Property Fund II J M Finanical Property Fund II 2 ITA No. 1627/MUM/2024

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income CIT(A) was justified in quashing the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income CIT(A) was justified in quashing the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income tax Act and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section tax Act and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section tax Act and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income tax Act, holding that prior sanction of the competent 147 of the Income tax Act, holding that prior sanction of the competent 147 of the Income tax Act, holding that prior sanction of the competent authority is not obtained f authority is not obtained for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act when or issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act when the same was duly obtained by the Assessment Officer?" the same was duly obtained by the Assessment Officer?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reason recorded for reopening and CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reason recorded for reopening and CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reason recorded for reopening and the issue on which the addition was made are different without issue on which the addition was made are different without issue on which the addition was made are different without appreciating that the disallowance made pertains to the income arising out appreciating that the disallowance made pertains to the income arising out appreciating that the disallowance made pertains to the income arising out of the investments mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening and of the investments mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening and of the investments mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening and that both are inter connected?" that both are inter connected?" 3. "Whether on the 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income CIT(A) was justified in quashing the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income CIT(A) was justified in quashing the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income tax Act and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section tax Act and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section tax Act and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income tax Act, without appreciating that the 147 of the Income tax Act, without appreciating that the due procedure has due procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment, been followed by the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment, been followed by the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment, such as recording the such as recording the reasons for reopening on the basis of fresh material reasons for reopening on the basis of fresh material available on record, issuing notice us. 148 of the Act within prescribed time available on record, issuing notice us. 148 of the Act within prescribed time available on record, issuing notice us. 148 of the Act within prescribed time limit, considering the objections raised by the assessee ering the objections raised by the assessee dealing with the dealing with the objections appropriately?". appropriately?". 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without going into merits, going into merits, and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the d thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the I.T.Act, notwithstanding that the assessee has not only invested in I.T.Act, notwithstanding that the assessee has not only invested in I.T.Act, notwithstanding that the assessee has not only invested in portfolio investments, but also in mutual fund units, which are not portfolio investments, but also in mutual fund units, which are not portfolio investments, but also in mutual fund units, which are not mandated in the trust deed and vio ates the basic objects of the tr mandated in the trust deed and vio ates the basic objects of the tr mandated in the trust deed and vio ates the basic objects of the trust deed?" 5. "Whether on the facts and. circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 5. "Whether on the facts and. circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 5. "Whether on the facts and. circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without going into merits, and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the going into merits, and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the going into merits, and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the I.T.Act, without appreci I.T.Act, without appreciating that the investments made by the assessee in ating that the investments made by the assessee in portfolio investment and in mutual fund units is in clear violation of portfolio investment and in mutual fund units is in clear violation of portfolio investment and in mutual fund units is in clear violation of Regulation 8(b) of the SEBI(VCF) Regulations, 1996?" Regulation 8(b) of the SEBI(VCF) Regulations, 1996?" 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without going into merits, and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the going into merits, and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the going into merits, and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the I.T.Act, without appreciating that the assessee has invested in an I.T.Act, without appreciating that the assessee has invested in an I.T.Act, without appreciating that the assessee has invested in an associate company namely M/s JM Financial Mutual F associate company namely M/s JM Financial Mutual Fund, which is in und, which is in clear violation of clause 12(c) of the SEBI(VCF) Regulations, 1996?" clear violation of clause 12(c) of the SEBI(VCF) Regulations, 1996?" clear violation of clause 12(c) of the SEBI(VCF) Regulations, 1996?" 7. ⁠7. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the . "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the . "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without id. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without id. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on technical ground without going into merits, going into merits, and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(35) of the and thereby allowing the exemption u/s 10(35) of the I.T.Act, without appreciating thai the income of the assessee cannot be I.T.Act, without appreciating thai the income of the assessee cannot be I.T.Act, without appreciating thai the income of the assessee cannot be

J M Finanical Property Fund II J M Finanical Property Fund II 3 ITA No. 1627/MUM/2024

split taking the income partly for computation u/s 10(23FB) and taking out split taking the income partly for computation u/s 10(23FB) and taking out split taking the income partly for computation u/s 10(23FB) and taking out partly for computation/exemption u/s 10(35) of the Act, partly for computation/exemption u/s 10(35) of the Act, in effect allowing in effect allowing and granting two status for the same year?" and granting two status for the same year?" 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30.07.2012 return of income for the year under consideration on 30.07.2012 return of income for the year under consideration on 30.07.2012 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. In the return of income filed the declaring total income at Rs. Nil. In the return of income filed declaring total income at Rs. Nil. In the return of income filed assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(35) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(35) of the Income assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(35) of the Income (in short ‘the Act’) at Rs.4,12,05,860/ (in short ‘the Act’) at Rs.4,12,05,860/-. Subsequently, the . Subsequently, the assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened by way of assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened by way of assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The reassessment issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The reassessm issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. The reassessm was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s was completed by the Assessing Officer on 29.01.2020 passed u/s 147 of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer denied the claim of 147 of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer denied the claim of 147 of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer denied the claim of exemption u/s 10(35) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,05,860/-. exemption u/s 10(35) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,05,860/ exemption u/s 10(35) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,05,860/

On further appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of t On further appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of t On further appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment and the disallowance of exemption on merit. The Ld. reassessment and the disallowance of exemption on merit. The Ld. reassessment and the disallowance of exemption on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) held the reassessment as bad in law and quashed the CIT(A) held the reassessment as bad in law and quashed the CIT(A) held the reassessment as bad in law and quashed the assessment order and did not adjudicate on the ground raised on assessment order and did not adjudicate on the ground raised on assessment order and did not adjudicate on the ground raised on merit holding the same as academic. merit holding the same as academic.

Before us, the Revenue ha Before us, the Revenue has raised the ground challenging the s raised the ground challenging the validity as well as the issue on merit. As far as validity of the validity as well as the issue on merit. As far as validity of the validity as well as the issue on merit. As far as validity of the reassessment, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment on one of the reassessment, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment on one of the reassessment, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment on one of the ground that addition made in the reassessment is different from the ground that addition made in the reassessment is different from the ground that addition made in the reassessment is different from the reasons to believe r reasons to believe recorded to have income escaped from ecorded to have income escaped from assessment. The Revenue has specifically raised this ground and assessment. The Revenue has specifically raised this ground and assessment. The Revenue has specifically raised this ground and

J M Finanical Property Fund II J M Finanical Property Fund II 4 ITA No. 1627/MUM/2024

mentioned that the additions made and the reasons recorded for mentioned that the additions made and the reasons recorded for mentioned that the additions made and the reasons recorded for reopening are interconnected. reopening are interconnected.

We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated this issue in para 4.7 of the the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated this issue in para 4.7 of the the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated this issue in para 4.7 of the impugned order. For ready reference, same is extracted as under: impugned order. For ready reference, same is extracted as under: impugned order. For ready reference, same is extracted as under:

“4.7 Lastly, it is seen that the reasons recorded for reopening of the 4.7 Lastly, it is seen that the reasons recorded for reopening of the 4.7 Lastly, it is seen that the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and the issue on which addition was made in the assessment assessment and the issue on which addition was made in the assessment assessment and the issue on which addition was made in the assessment order were altogether different. As per the provision of the Act, the AO is order were altogether different. As per the provision of the Act, the AO is order were altogether different. As per the provision of the Act, the AO is not allowed to do so. This proposition a not allowed to do so. This proposition also finds its support from the lso finds its support from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd (331 ITR 236) wherein it has been held that Airways (1) Ltd (331 ITR 236) wherein it has been held that Airways (1) Ltd (331 ITR 236) wherein it has been held that "16.Explanation 3 lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial "16.Explanation 3 lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial "16.Explanation 3 lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the makin interpretation, on the making of an assessment or reassessment on g of an assessment or reassessment on grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under section 148 setting out the reasons for the belief that income had escaped section 148 setting out the reasons for the belief that income had escaped section 148 setting out the reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment. Those judicial decisions had held that when the assessment assessment. Those judicial decisions had held that when the assessment assessment. Those judicial decisions had held that when the assessment was sought to be reopened on the ground that income had escaped was sought to be reopened on the ground that income had escaped was sought to be reopened on the ground that income had escaped assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice during the proceedings. This interpretation will no during the proceedings. This interpretation will no longer hold the field longer hold the field after the insertion of Explanation 3 by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2009. after the insertion of Explanation 3 by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2009. after the insertion of Explanation 3 by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income ("such income") which e assess or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment scaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issu proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he ing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh ly to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh ly to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee.”

J M Finanical Property Fund II J M Finanical Property Fund II 5 ITA No. 1627/MUM/2024

5.1 Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the disallowance of Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the disallowance of Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the disallowance of exemption u/s 10(35) of the Act made is different from the income tion u/s 10(35) of the Act made is different from the income tion u/s 10(35) of the Act made is different from the income which was held to be escaped assessment in the reasons recorded which was held to be escaped assessment in the reasons recorded which was held to be escaped assessment in the reasons recorded to understand this controversy. For ready reference it is reproduced to understand this controversy. For ready reference it is reproduced to understand this controversy. For ready reference it is reproduced as under:

“REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/ 147 “REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/ 147 “REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/ 147 The assessee, M/s. JM Financial Property Fund II, is assessed to tax in see, M/s. JM Financial Property Fund II, is assessed to tax in see, M/s. JM Financial Property Fund II, is assessed to tax in this charge. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30.07.2012 for this charge. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30.07.2012 for this charge. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30.07.2012 for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring income at NIL. The assessee is a Venture Capital 13 declaring income at NIL. The assessee is a Venture Capital 13 declaring income at NIL. The assessee is a Venture Capital Fund. The objectives of the Trust, as per the Fund. The objectives of the Trust, as per the Trust Deed, is that the Fund Trust Deed, is that the Fund shall seek contribution from the contributors, with a view to pool and shall seek contribution from the contributors, with a view to pool and shall seek contribution from the contributors, with a view to pool and invest the same in a portfolio of privately negotiated investments in invest the same in a portfolio of privately negotiated investments in invest the same in a portfolio of privately negotiated investments in companies engaged in activities in the real estate sector in India. For this companies engaged in activities in the real estate sector in India. For this companies engaged in activities in the real estate sector in India. For this purpose, the Trustee Company shall, in accordance with directions from the Trustee Company shall, in accordance with directions from the Trustee Company shall, in accordance with directions from the Investment Committee, do all such other acts, deeds and things as the Investment Committee, do all such other acts, deeds and things as the Investment Committee, do all such other acts, deeds and things as may be incidental or necessary for the advancement or fulfillment of the may be incidental or necessary for the advancement or fulfillment of the may be incidental or necessary for the advancement or fulfillment of the above objects without any limitations. above objects without any limitations. 2. In the assessee's own case, assessment for A.Y. 2016 sessee's own case, assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 was sessee's own case, assessment for A.Y. 2016 completed u/s.143(3) of the Income completed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 denying the assessee tax Act, 1961 denying the assessee its claim of being a Venture Capital Fund and exemption claimed u/s. its claim of being a Venture Capital Fund and exemption claimed u/s. its claim of being a Venture Capital Fund and exemption claimed u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income was 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income was 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income was withdrawn and treated as income from other sources. Also, the deduction hdrawn and treated as income from other sources. Also, the deduction hdrawn and treated as income from other sources. Also, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.10(23FB) of the income under the head claimed by the assessee u/s.10(23FB) of the income under the head claimed by the assessee u/s.10(23FB) of the income under the head "short term capital gain" on investment in VCUs was also disallowed and "short term capital gain" on investment in VCUs was also disallowed and "short term capital gain" on investment in VCUs was also disallowed and brought to tax. 3. Based on the above information 3. Based on the above information, ITS details of the assessee for A.Y. , ITS details of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 has been downloaded from the system. On verification of the 13 has been downloaded from the system. On verification of the 13 has been downloaded from the system. On verification of the details, during the F.Y. details, during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13, the assessee 13, the assessee has paid sum of Rs.62,70,00,000/ has paid sum of Rs.62,70,00,000/- for purchase of Units of Mutual Fund. for purchase of Units of Mutual Fund. From the records, it is seen that the assessee has filed paper return the records, it is seen that the assessee has filed paper return the records, it is seen that the assessee has filed paper return without any audited statement of accounts and therefore the above without any audited statement of accounts and therefore the above without any audited statement of accounts and therefore the above investment in Mutual Funds remains unexplained. investment in Mutual Funds remains unexplained. 4. In view of the above, after application of mind on various issues 4. In view of the above, after application of mind on various issues 4. In view of the above, after application of mind on various issues involved in a Venture Capital Fund, I have reason to believe that for in a Venture Capital Fund, I have reason to believe that for in a Venture Capital Fund, I have reason to believe that for failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully & truly all material failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully & truly all material failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully & truly all material facts facts facts necessary necessary necessary for for for assessment, assessment, assessment, income income income to to to the the the extent extent extent of of of Rs.62,70,00,000/ Rs.62,70,00,000/- chargeable to tax or any other income chargea chargeable to tax or any other income chargeable to tax which comes to notice subsequently in the course of proceedings for tax which comes to notice subsequently in the course of proceedings for tax which comes to notice subsequently in the course of proceedings for

J M Finanical Property Fund II J M Finanical Property Fund II 6 ITA No. 1627/MUM/2024

re-assessment, has escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2012 assessment, has escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13 assessment, has escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2012 within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.2 On perusal of the above reasons recorded, we find that in para On perusal of the above reasons recorded, we find that in para On perusal of the above reasons recorded, we find that in para 3, the Assessing Officer has recorded that investment in mutual 3, the Assessing Officer has recorded that investment in mutual 3, the Assessing Officer has recorded that investment in mutual funds of Rs.62,70,00,000/ funds of Rs.62,70,00,000/- remained unexplained and therefore, remained unexplained and therefore, the assessment has been reopened whereas in the assessment the assessment has been reopened whereas in the assessment the assessment has been reopened whereas in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of the the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of the the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(35) of the Act amounting exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(35) of the Act amounting exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(35) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,12,05,860/-. In our opinion, the issue of investment in the . In our opinion, the issue of investment in the . In our opinion, the issue of investment in the mutual fund is different from the income mutual fund is different from the income from mutual fund claimed from mutual fund claimed as exempt. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer is empt. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer is empt. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer is referring to the source of the investment in mutual fund which referring to the source of the investment in mutual fund which referring to the source of the investment in mutual fund which according to the reasons recorded was not explained. Whereas in according to the reasons recorded was not explained. Whereas in according to the reasons recorded was not explained. Whereas in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has denied has denied the claim of exemption for the income from mutual fund invoking section 10(35) tion for the income from mutual fund invoking section 10(35) tion for the income from mutual fund invoking section 10(35) of the Act. We are of the view that case of the assessee squarely falls of the Act. We are of the view that case of the assessee squarely falls of the Act. We are of the view that case of the assessee squarely falls under the ratio of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT under the ratio of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT under the ratio of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) which has been v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) which v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) which followed by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we uphold the finding of followed by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we uphold the finding of followed by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The ground No. 2 challenging the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The ground No. 2 challenging the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The ground No. 2 challenging validity of the reassessment is accordingly dismissed. validity of the reassessment is accordingly dismissed. validity of the reassessment is accordingly dismissed.

5.3 Since, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue i Since, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue i Since, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute of validity of the reassessment is upheld, the other grounds raised by validity of the reassessment is upheld, the other grounds raised by validity of the reassessment is upheld, the other grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly rendered merely academic. We are also the Revenue are accordingly rendered merely academic. We are also the Revenue are accordingly rendered merely academic. We are also

J M Finanical Property Fund II J M Finanical Property Fund II 7 ITA No. 1627/MUM/2024

that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on the merit of the that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on the merit of the that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on the merit of the matter and therefore, we are not adjudicati matter and therefore, we are not adjudicating the grounds related to ng the grounds related to the merit of the matter. the merit of the matter.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 24/07/2024. /07/2024. Sd/- - Sd/- Sd/ (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24/07/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25.1.1,MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. J M FINACIAL PROPERTY FUND II, MUMBAI