Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajen Kirtilal Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Hemlata Mahendra Chavda, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Ila Khimjibhai Dulla, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(4)(2), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Jasaram Kesramji Rathod, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14 Jasaram K. Rathod, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.1, Plot No.391, Ward-28(1)(1), Saidham Building, Vs. It Office, Sector 19, Opp: Jimmy Tower, Vashi Railway Station Building, Kopar Khairne, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400709. Pan : Aacpc3348K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pritam Kulapkar, Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23-07-2025 Impugned Herein Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short „Nfac‟)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short „Ld. Commissioner‟) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Had Declared His Total Income Of Rs. 16,97,210/-By Filing His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On Dt. 01-11-2013, Which Was Subsequently Reopened For Re-Assessment U/S. 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice Dt. 30-03-2021 U/S. 148 Of The Act, Mainly On The Reason That The Assessee Though Made Cash Payment Of Rs. 22,50,000/-For Purchase Of Land With Shri Mahesh M. Munde & 11 Others, But Has Not Offered The Same For Taxation For The Ay. 2013-14. 2 3. The Assessee In Response Filed His Return Of Income On 05-01-2022, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 16,97,210/-As Declared Originally. The Said Return Filed By The Assessee Was Declared/Considered As Belated And/Or Filed After The Stipulated Time Given In The Notice Dt. 30-03-2021 U/S. 148 Of The Act I.E., Within Thirty Days And, Therefore, The Same Was Treated As „Nonest’ & Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Finalized U/S. 144 Of The Act Making The Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs. 22,50,000/- By Passing The Assessment Order Dt. 29-03-2022 U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Deepak Ghanshamdas Takhtani, Khar vs. Income Tax Ward Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed, and the impugned reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed

Bench: Adverting To The Merits Of The Addition, We Deem It Appropriate, As A Matter Of Judicial Propriety & Settled Legal Discipline, To First Examine The Jurisdictional Challenge Raised By The Assessee, Since If The Assumption Of Jurisdiction Itself Is Found To Be Infirm, The Entire Superstructure Of The Reassessment Would Necessarily Collapse.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

Income Tax Officer-34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pinky Himanshu Acharya, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed, whereas the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusetha.Y. : 2017-18