IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6022/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

(Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Assessee by Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2013–14, arising out of the assessment order dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section

147 read with section 144B of the Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2013–14 on 29.09.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 11,35,45,570/-. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) determining total income of Rs. 13,40,45,570/-. Subsequently, a reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 was also completed on 29.12.2017 determining total income of Rs. 14,03,67,404/-. Thereafter, based on information available with the National E- Assessment Centre, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings once again. According to the Assessing Officer, information was received to the effect that the assessee had purchased an office premises situated at Unit No. 3, 1st Floor, Centrium, C.S. No. 124/A, 15, LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai, on 28.09.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 5,49,04,095/-, and the said property was sold on 27.09.2017 (on 29.09.2017 as mentioned in order of AO). It was noticed that in subsequent assessment years, the assessee had let out the said property and offered rental income there-from under the head “Income from House Property”, while also reducing the property from the block of assets.

3. The Assessing Officer was of the view that for A.Y. 2013–14, the assessee had claimed depreciation on the said property amounting to Rs. 54,90,410/-, even though, according to him, the property was not used for the purposes of business. Further, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee ought to have offered notional rental income from the said property under the head “Income from House Property”, as the property was allegedly a deemed let-out property. On this basis, proceedings under section 148A were initiated, and after passing an order under section 148A(d) dated 28.07.2022, notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022.

4. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee filed its return of income on 18.08.2021, declaring income as originally returned. During the course of reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer held that depreciation under section 32 is allowable only where the asset is used for the purposes of business during the relevant previous year. According to him, the assessee failed to establish that the property was used for business purposes in the year under consideration. He further held that allowing depreciation on the property, while also permitting deduction under section 24 in respect of income from house property, would result in a double deduction, which is not permissible under law. As no actual rental income was disclosed by the assessee for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer proceeded to determine the annual letting value of the property by adopting a method based on Manual XVII o