MUKESH KUMAR MARDIA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

ITA 2848/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mukesh Kumar Mardia, the appellant, contesting the reopening of his income tax assessment for the year 2016-17 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The primary legal challenge was against the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the appellant argued was time-barred. The Tribunal considered precedents and the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act to determine the validity of the notice. The Tribunal found that the notice was issued beyond the permissible time limit for cases where the escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, leading to the quashing of the notice and the subsequent assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668986 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Acropolis Realty (P.) Ltd vs Income-tax Officer, Amrit Corporation vs DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: R.M. JAIN
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2848/Mum/2025 (Assessment year : 2016-17) Mukesh Kumar Mardia 3rd floor, 38, Champa Galli cross Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002 PAN : AABP7665E vs National Faceless Assessment centre, Delhi / Income-tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri R.M. Jain Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR) Date of hearing : 19/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/06/2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereafter, Ld.CIT(A)], dated 6/02/2025 for the assessment year 20167-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as follows:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming in reopening the case under section 148 of the Act which is bad in law as it is time barred as per section 149(1) (b) of the Act 2 ITA 2848/Mum/2025 Mukesh Kumar Mardia 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. for not proving evidence and materials which are used against me. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. for not allowing long term capital gain of Rs. 34,85,400 as exempt u/s 10(38) of the IT A Act. 4. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. At the very outset, the Ld.AR has pressed ground 1 which is legal in nature, wherein assessee has challenged the proceedings under section 148 as bad in law, being time barred, as per section 149 of the I.T. Act. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the counsels, perused the materials placed on record, judgements cited before me and also the order passed by the revenue authorities. 5. From the records I notice that in the present case, notice under section 148 was issued on 29/07/2022, i.e. beyond 3 years and the escaped income as has been reported was less than R.50 lakhs. Therefore, the ratio of judgement in the case of Acropolis Realty (P.) Ltd vs Income-tax Officer reported in (2024) 168 taxmann.com 406 (Delhi) is squarely applicable, wherein it has been held that where income in respect of which the Assessing Officer had information to suggest that it had escaped assessment, was below threshold limit of Rs.50 lakhs, re-assessment proceedings could not have been initiated beyond the period of 3 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Further, the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench “A”, in the case of Amrit Corporation vs DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai in ITA Nos. 1656 & 1657/Mum/2025, order dated 18/06/2025 has also decided on the same lines. 3 ITA 2848/Mum/2025 Mukesh Kumar Mardia 6. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act is in clear violation of provisions of section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned notice are bad in law and, therefore, I quash the same. Since I have quashed the assessment under section 147 read with action 144B of the Act on the legal ground itself, therefore, other grounds raised by the assessee are not being adjudicated upon and are left open. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of June, 2025. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 25/06/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai "