IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (A.Y: 2006-07)

M/s Magnum Equity बनाम The ACIT Circle 4 (3), /

Broking Ltd., Room No. 638, 6^th Vs.

D-30, Empire Mahal, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 806, DR. B A Road, M.K. Road, Khodadad, Mumbai - 400023 Mumbai - 400014 (cid:1)थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACM5661N (अपीलाथ(cid:9) /Appellant) .. ((cid:10)(cid:11)यथ(cid:9) / Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:9) ओर से /

Shri Nishit Gandhi, AR Appellant by :

Shri Bharat Andhle, DR (cid:10)(cid:11)यथ(cid:9) क(cid:18) ओर स/े Respondent by :

सनु वाई क(cid:18) तार(cid:24)ख / Date of 15/02/2021 Hearing घोषणा क(cid:18) तार(cid:24)ख /Date of 17/03/2021 Pronouncement आ देश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 9, Mumbai, passed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9. Mumbai ["the CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 (3), Mumbai ["the AO"] u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 ["the Act" for short] in gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice since the same is passed in ignorance of the relevant and material considerations and evidences as furnished by the Appellant.

ON JURISDICTION:

2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and as affirmed by the CIT(A) is had in law and void for want of jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be quashed.

2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the re-assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is had in law since none of the necessary pre-conditions for initiation as well as completion of a reassessment as contemplated u/s 147 / 148 of the Act are fulfilled in the present case.

2.3 Further while affirming the order of the AO, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in:

(a) Refusing to consider the objections raised before him. as to the legality and validity of the order passed by the AO.

on frivolous grounds:

(b) Not appreciating the fact that. there was no income escaping assessment in the present case since (i) the rent income of Rs.600,000/- now added was already offered to tax by the Appellant; and (ii) The Rebate u/s 88E does not fall in the purview of 'income' so as to escape assessment; and;

(c) Upholding the re-assessment order despite accepting the fact, that the Notice u/s 148 as well as the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated merely oil basis of an audit objection and without any independent application of mind to the facts of the case and without obtaining the necessary and judicious sanction as contemplated u/s 151 of the Act.

2.4 in view of the above, the order passed by the AO and as affirmed by the CIT(A) deserves to be quashed.

ON MERITS:

3.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,20,000/- (Gross: Rs.600,000 Less: 30% Standard Deduction) under the head income from House Property despite the fact that the same has already been taken into consideration by the Appellant while computing its taxable income under the Act.

3.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:

(a) the said Rent income of Rs. (600,000/- has already been offered to tax under the head Profits and Gains of Business and Profession while computing the taxable income of the Appellant;

(b) Adding the said amount again would lead to double taxation of the same income and;

(c) In any case, the business income of the Appellant would have to be reduced by an amount of Rs. 600,000/-

pursuant to the re-assessment order which would in fact reduce the taxable income of the Appellant.

4.1 In the facts and circum