IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.4071/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 I.T.A. No.3973/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Hashmat Ishaq Parker vs Income Tax Officer

1, Furus, Tal-Khed, District- Income Tax Office, Ward Ratnagiri, Maharashtra- 17(3)(1),Mumbai-400051

415710 PAN : AXOPP1815H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Dharan Gandhi Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Date of hearing : 08/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 14/01/2026 O R D E R Per Bench:

Both the appeal was filed by the assessee by challenging the order of the NFAC Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act), date of order 20/12/2024 and 06/12/2024 related to assessment year 2015-16 and 2018-19 respectively. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Learned Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Ratinagiri (for brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’) order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, date of orders 20/03/2023 and 21/03/2023 for assessment years 2015-16 and 2018-19.

2. Since all the appeals pertain to the same assessee, involving similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the appeal for the assessment year 2015-16 is treated as a lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal for AY 2018-19 before us.

ITA No.4071/Mum/2025, A.Y. 2015-16

3. The assessee has taken the following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the notice issued under section 148 dated

31.03.2022 and consequent process of re-opening of the assessment is invalid inasmuch as:

a. The said notice is unsigned and is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 282A and Rule 127.

b. There being no power to the JAO to issue notice u/s 148 in terms of Circular No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 the notice so issued is invalid.”

4. The registry informed that both the appeals have been filed with a delay. The Ld. AR stated that for A.Y. 2015-16 the appeal was filed delay for 111 days and for 2018-19 the appeal was filed for 145 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit duly executed by the assessee himself dated 09.06.2025. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection for condoning the delay for both the appeals. Accordingly, we find that there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay for both the appeals. Hence, the delay for both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are taken for adjudication.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment proceedings were initiated under section 148A of the Act pursuant to the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT. Thereafter, the Ld. AO completed the proceedings under section 148 of the Act on the basis of information available under the said Risk Management Strategy, relating to the purchase of an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,52,76,500/- and receipt of interest income amounting to Rs.42,754/- from the State Bank of India. Notices were issued, and ultimately both the amounts were added to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO passed an ex parte assessment order due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment both on legal grounds as well as on merits. The Ld. CIT(A), after passing a speaking order and by exercising powers under section 251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the impugned assessment order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. AO, as the assessment had been framed ex parte under section 144 of the Act. The assessee, still aggrieved, filed an appeal before the ITAT, challenging the validity of the notice issued by