MR. ROHIT RAMESH KAPOOR,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 42(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2416/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Mr. Rohit Ramesh Kapoor, the appellant, contested the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 13.02.2025 concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issues revolved around the procedural validity of notices issued under sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the conduct of the assessment in a non-faceless manner contrary to the Faceless Scheme. The appellant argued that the assessment was completed under section 144 without proper notice, leading to an ex-parte order, which was later set aside by the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment. The Tribunal, considering the ongoing legal discourse on the issuance of notices by jurisdictional versus faceless officers, refrained from making a definitive ruling on this procedural issue but directed a timely completion of the reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714471 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Hexaware Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2416/MUM/2025 (AY: 2015-16) Mr. Rohit Ramesh Kapoor S/o. Ramesh Chandra Kapoor, 301, 3rd Floor, Exotica Apartment, Plot No. 91, Sector 12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. PAN: AVDPK8131E Vs ITO, Ward-42(3)(2) Mumbai Room No. 609, Kautilya Bhawan C-41 to C-43, G Block, BKC Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented by : Shri V.D. Parmar, Advocate Department Represented by : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. DR Date of Institution : 07.04.2025 Date of Conclusion of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement of Order : 05.08.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC dated 13.02.2025 for A.Y. 2015-16.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding grounds of appeal relating to jurisdictional issue of notice u/s 148 of the I T Act, 1961. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding ground of appeal relating to conducting of the proceedings u/s 148A and u/s 148 by jurisdictional AO in non-faceless manner which is contrary to Faceless Scheme of faceless assessment of the I T Act, 1961. Hence, assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is bad in law. Reliance is placed on decision of jurisdictional H C in case of Hexaware Technoligies Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom). 3. The appellant craves leave to consider each of the above ground of appeal as independent and without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any or all grounds of appeal.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2416/MUM/2025 Mr. Rohit Ramesh Kapoor 2 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). The assessee sold and purchases immovable property during the relevant financial year. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information available in the record of department. During the assessment, no notice either under section 148 or any other notice was served upon the assessee. The assessment was completed under section 144. On coming to know about the ex-pate assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) restored/set aside the case to the file of assessing officer for de novo assessment. The ld. AR submits that he has a very limited prayer about issuance of notice under section 148 by jurisdiction assessing officer when assessment was completed in a faceless manner. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee was appraised about the fact that issue relating to issuance of notice under section 148 by jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) vis-à-vis by faceless assessing officer (FAO) is now pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it would not be appropriate by this bench to give any decision on such issue. After considering the position, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that matter pertained to A.Y. 2015-16 and the assessee is NRI, therefore, jurisdictional assessing officer may be directed to complete the de novo assessment in a time frame manner and he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to make timely compliance to the notices of assessing officer. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2416/MUM/2025 Mr. Rohit Ramesh Kapoor 3 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue after hearing the submission of assessee raised no objection for giving direction to the jurisdictional assessing officer for completing assessment within one year. 4. We have considering the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Considering the fact that ld CIT(A) has already restored back to the file of assessing officer. Therefore, no interference is called for at our end. However, we accept the submission of ld. AR of the assessee to complete the assessment order in a time frame manner. Hence, we direct the JAO to pass fresh assessment order as early as possible that to not later than one year from received of this order. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.08.2025 at the time of hearing. Sd/- Sd/- GIR OMKARESHWAR CHIDARAISH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NT MEMBER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 05.08.2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "