SHASHI HARIKISHAN GOSWAMI ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1860/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shashi Harikishan Goswami, the appellant, who contested the reopening of his income tax assessment and the subsequent addition of deemed rental income by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The appellant argued that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion without new facts, and that the flats occupied by his family should be considered as one unit for rental purposes. The NFAC, Delhi, had previously not adjudicated these issues, leading to the appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the NFAC had not properly considered the appellant's submissions and directed a re-evaluation of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669174 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI
• Assessee Lawyers: R.C. MODI
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai. Before Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1860/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Shashi Harikishan Goswami C/o. Vishal International Productions Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, 45 Tagore Road, Santacruz West Mumbai-400 054. Vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(1) Piramal Chambers Room No. 307 Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 012. PAN : AAFPG9278H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Date of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 26/06/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- From the grounds of appeal, in this case it is observed that the grievance of appellant is that, Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has not adjudicated two issues :- i) The reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Act and passing an order under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. And to be quashed. ii) The Ld. NFAC, Delhi/Ld.CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the main issue of deemed rental income added by Ld. AO on merits. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that detailed grounds of appeal and written submissions were made to the NFAC, Delhi about the reopening of assessment as well as making an addition of Rs. 51,43,460/- as deemed rental income. The Ld. AR of the appellant pleads that the family members of appellant are residing in three different flats situated in different floors and they should be taken as one unit. Despite making detailed submissions Shashi Harikishan Goswami 2 about three issues/additions made by Ld. AO, only one issue relating to rental income admitted in subsequent year was adjudicated where relief was given to appellant. The other two issues were not adjudicated by NFAC Delhi, is the main grievance of appellant. 3. Before the Bench, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). The appellant filed a detailed paper book containing several facts and cases-law for the proposition that the reopening of assessment is invalid because the Ld. AO reopened the same based on change of opinion and no new facts have come to light and also there is full disclosure of facts at the time of original assessment itself. Hence, it was argued that the reopening of assessment should be quashed as bad in law. As far as merits are concerned, the Ld. AR of the appellant has stated that the appellant was allotted four flats in four floors, but they should be taken as one portion even though three flats in different floors were occupied by family members. 4. Heard both sides and perused the paper book filed by Ld. AR of the appellant. From the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi, it is observed that despite the detailed grounds and written submissions of appellant, the crucial issues of reopening the assessment and detailed arguments on merits with respect to deemed rental income were not adjudicated. In the entire appeal order which is very long running into 28 pages, is basically reproduction of assessment order and submissions of Ld. AR and decision was rendered on only one issue, instead of three issues. The two main issues were not adjudicated. The Ld. AR has submitted that even before Ld. AO, proper opportunity was not given. The written submissions were filed on 21.3.2022 and the assessment order was passed on 23.3.2022 and the written submissions dated 21.3.2022 were not considered by Ld. AO while passing the order. The Ld. CIT(A) has got sufficient time and opportunity to deal with all these issues, but just reproduced the assessment order and submissions of Ld. AR of the appellant but failed to adjudicate two main Shashi Harikishan Goswami 3 issues as mentioned above. This casual approach of Ld. NFAC is not correct and unnecessarily appellant is forced to file further appeal to ITAT. As the Ld. NFAC, Delhi has not adjudicated these two issues of reopening of assessment and deemed rental value. The NFAC Delhi, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to take all written submissions into consideration, give proper opportunity to the appellant and pass a speaking order on both the issues at the earliest because for no fault of appellant, she is put to inconvenience of filing of further appeal. This attitude of non-adjudication of issues raised before him should be avoided in future. The two issues which were not adjudicated are remitted to the file of NFAC, Delhi. 5. The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS "