IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year :2016-17

Assessee by Shri Mehul Choksi Revenue by Shri Anil Sant Date of Hearing 04/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 / O R D E R आदेश PER RENU JAUHRI (AM):

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, INT Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai (‘Ld. AO’) u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for Assessment Years 2016-17; pursuant to the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai (‘DRP’).

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:-

Ground No.1 Section 147/148A/148 Issue. Validity and legality of reassessment u/s 148A of the 147/148A/ Act and subsequent notice u/s 148 of the Act [Tax effect: Rs 1,58,420/-]

1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings u/s 148A of the Act followed by notice u/s 148 of the Act and the re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are wholly misconceived without jurisdiction, Invalid, illegal and bad in law.

1.2 The Appellant submits that the notices u/s 148A/148 of the Act and proceedings based thereon are bad in law and the reopening is baseless and devoid of merits.

1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/Dispute Resolution Panel has grossly erred in not considering submissions/objections of the Appellant and completing the reassessment in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner

1.4 The reassessment order is without lawful jurisdiction and hence unsustainable in eyes of law and is liable to be annulled and quashed. Ground No. 2 Section: 56 Issue: Addition of hardship allowance Rs 10,36,000/- [Tax effect: Rs 1,58,420/-]

2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has grossly erred in adding Rs 10,36,000/- as income and raising tax/interest demand of Rs

4,00,502/-

2.2 The learned AO and Dispute Resolution Panel grossly erred in not considering hardship allowance as capital receipt as held in judicial authorities of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

2.3 The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs 10,36,000/-

may be rendered may be deleted and justice.

Ground No.3 Section: 234A/234B/ 234D Issue: Interest u/s 234A/2348/234D of the Act erroneously charged [Tax effect. Interest Rs 2,41,985/-]

The Appellant prays that the interest of Rs 2,41,985/- charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234D, as the case may be, of the Act may be deleted/modified as consequential relief in accordance with law Ground No.4 Section: Misc The Appellant prays that the learned AO may be directed to grant all such reliefs arising from the preceding grounds as also any or all reliefs consequential thereto.

Ground No.5 Section: Misc Each of the grounds of appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another.

Ground No.6 Section: Misc The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, omit or substitute any or all grounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may be thus granted.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Non- resident Indian who filed original return for A.Y.2016-17 on 28/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.2,39,760/- which was processed u/s.143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, notice u/s.148 was issued on receipt of information that assessee has been paid an amount of Rs.10,36,000/- during the year as ‘hardship allowance’ by the builder under re