IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.998/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007)

Mohd Shafi Isamail Merchant

803, Panchvati Panch Marg, Off. Yari Road, Versova, Mumbai – 400061. Maharahstra [PAN: AAMPM85055H] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1)

Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – 400012. Vs Maharashtra …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Ashwin Chhag For the Respondent/Department : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati Date Conclusion of hearing : 09.01.2026 Pronouncement of order : 20.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The Assessee has preferred the present appeal against the Order, dated 24/12/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had set-aside the Assessment Order, dated 06/03/2014, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 in terms of First Proviso to Section

251 the Act.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. That while ld. NFAC(A) set-aside the case back to NFAC(A), failed to appreciate and resolving the grounds of appeal that this reopening by the ld. AO is without jurisdiction. Ld. NFAC(A)

should have resolved the issue of jurisdiction raised prior to set it aside back to the AO.

2. That the order of the ld. NFCA(A) setting aside the matter back to the AO is arbitrary in the circumstances where all the fact are on the record, including the agreement which is alleged to have not on record, and issue raised are jurisdictional and legal in nature. It has gone unnoticed that the jurisdiction of CIT(A)

is co-terminus with the Assessing Officer.

3. The Assessee is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2006-

2007 reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee on the basis of AIR-Information available with the Assessing Officer to the effect that the Assessee had invested INR.43,62,400/- in purchase of immovable property during the relevant previous year. According to the Assessing Officer, the Assessee did not respond to the notices issued during the course of hearing. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment on the Assessee under Section 144 of the Act. After taking into consideration copy of the registered agreement furnished by the Joint Sub-Registrar Lonaval District Pune, in response to notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer concluded that the Assessee had purchased immovable property for consideration of INR.43,62,400/-, paid stamp duty of INR.2,61,749/- and registration fee of INR.30,000/-. In absence of any representation on behalf of the Assessee, the Assessing Officer added the aggregate of the aforesaid amounts in the hands of the Assessee assessing the income for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 at INR.47,54,150/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before the Learned CIT(A). It was contended by the Assessee that at the relevant time the Assessee was resided at 809, Panchvati Punch Marg, Versova Yari Road, Andheri, Mumbai – 400061 whereas the assessment order was addressed at old address i.e. B-4, Sai Nagar, Yari Road, Varsova, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400061. It was submitted that even the notices were issued at the old address and therefore, the Assessee had no knowledge of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The Assessee also challenged the validity of assessment proceedings before the Learned CIT(A) raising following grounds:

i. It was claimed that the mandatory notices under the provisions of the Act were not served on the Assessee, hence, the assessment order is void-ab-initio.

ii. There was no compliance of the provisions of Section

148(2) of the Act on the part of the Assessing Officer iii. It was contended that it was a case to verify the