JAYESH HARISH NAROLIWALA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8614/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jayesh Harish Naroliwala, the appellant, who challenged the re-assessment order passed under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the assessment year 2017-18. The re-assessment was related to the purchase of a flat in Cosmopolis in 2010. The appellant argued that the re-assessment and subsequent orders upheld by the CIT(A) were erroneous as they resulted in parallel proceedings on the same assessed income, which was already under appeal from the original assessment order under section 143(3). The tribunal noted that the appellant had not received notices at the correct address, leading to his absence during the earlier proceedings, and thus decided to restore the matter for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840377 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHTAR H. ANSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH SINGH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Reasonable cause; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 8614/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jayesh Harish Naroliwala Flat No. 004, Plot No. 21, Hindu Friend Society Road, Jogeshwari East S. O. Mumbai – 400060 Vs. ITO-Ward41(4)(2), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. ABZPN6008R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by Shri Akhtar H. Ansari – SR. DR 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 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.8614/Mum/2025 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, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.8614/Mum/2025 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.” 2. 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. 3. On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 4. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.8614/Mum/2025 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. 5. 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. 6. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Orders pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 26/02/2026 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.8614/Mum/2025 Jayesh Harish Naroliwala आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u000eथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु\u0003बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत ित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "