IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4199/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Preity G Zinta Income Tax Officer, Int Tax, 403 Parishram, Ward 4(3)(1), Smt. Nergish Dutt Road, Mumbai Bandra West Vs.

MUMBAI - 400050 PAN: AAAPZ2650B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri. Dharan Gandhi and Ms. Vinita Nara, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the assessment order passed under the directions of order of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5) r.w.s. 254_260A/2024- 25/1075167929(1), dated 28/03/2025, passed u/s. 144C(5) r.w.s. 254/260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

“1. The reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act vide notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 is bad in law and without jurisdiction, therefore should be set aside. 2. The Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP erred in adding a sum of Rs. 10,84,27,700/- u/s.

68 of the Act being credits in the bank account.

3. The Ld. Income-tax Officer, International Tax Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai, had no jurisdiction to passed the impugned order

4. The directions of Ld. DRP vide order dated 28.03.2025 and the final assessment order dated 29.04.2025 are barred by limitation and are therefore, bad in law

5. The Ld. AO has erred in the levying interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.

6. The Ld. AO, has erred in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act

7. The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Act.”

3. This is the second round of litigation by the assessee before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed pursuant to directions of ld. DRP u/s. 144C(5) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Assessee is a non-resident individual working as a film actress. She filed her return of income on 26.06.2016 reporting total income at Rs. 46,20,340. Based on information received on inside portal of the Department about high value credits and debit transaction carried out by assessee, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Ld. Assessing officer issued the draft assessment order dated 31.03.2022 proposing variation to the return income by making a proposed assessment of total income at Rs. 11,30,48,040/-. Against the said draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP who vide its order dated 31.12.2022 upheld the additions proposed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Subsequent to the directions, ld. Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order in conformity with the directions so given by the ld. DRP, vide assessment order dated 23.01.2023. An appeal was moved by the assessee before the Tribunal against the final assessment order. Coordinate Bench set aside the order and directed that the matter be decided by the Assessing Officer and the DRP on the issue of validity of initiating reassessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer. It was directed tothe Assessing Officer to reiterate the findings and adjudication on merits of the case made in the final assessment order dated 23.01.2023.

3.1. Pursuant to the said direction of the Tribunal, matter was taken up by the ld. Assessing Officer and fresh directions were given by ld. DRP in respect of validity of initiating reassessment proceedings. Merits of the case were reiterated as originally directed in the initial order by ld. DRP dated 31.12.2022. Fact of the matter is that, based on findings of the investigation wing, it was found that assessee had carried out transaction of Rs.13.10 crores on account of credit of Rs.13,10,10,300/- and debit of Rs.13,10,00,000/- leaving nominal balance of Rs.10,300/- in the saving account bearing number 535SB01010702, newly opened on 25.01.20