IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6980/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Daljit Bal Income Tax Officer, 204 205, 2nd Floor, Ward 27(1)(4), Krishna Bhavan, B S D Marg, N avi Mumbai Govandi, Vs.

Mumbai – 400088 (PAN : ABRPB4625J)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi and Shri Harshad Shah, Advocates Revenue : Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059631231(1), dated 11.01.2024, passed against the assessment order by Income Tax Officer, Ward-

27(1)(4), Mumbai, u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 01.11.2018 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

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

“ON JURISDICTION

1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC ["Ld. CIT (A)") erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in initiating reassessment proceedings and framing assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"].

1.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessment itself made along with the addition made therein was beyond the scope of assessment under section 147 of the Act and the necessary conditions for initiating reassessment proceedings and completion of the assessment were not fulfilled.

1.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the assessment order is bad, illegal and void.

ON NATURAL JUSTICE

2.1 The Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, only for not replying or filing any written submission with evidences, even though the Appellant had filed the copy of application to AO for cancellation of this PAN, as the Appellant had filed return under the regular PAN.

2.2 The Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, without adjudicating on merit, as the letter for duplicate PAN with ITRV copy on regular PAN of Appellant for this very Assessment Year was filed before CIT(A).

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:

2.1 On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the Assessment Order u/s.147 rws.144 rws.143(3) as on merit of the case, that the Appellant had already declared the said Income u/s.44AE under the regular PAN

2.2 The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the Assessment Order u/s 147 rws.144 rws.143(3) which was passed on duplicate PAN, without appreciating that Appellant on having came to know about duplicate PAN, immediately filed application before Ld AO to cancel the duplicate PAN.

2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such assessment or addition was called for.

ON MERIT

3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making an addition u/s.68 of the Act on account of alleged cash deposited in the Bank.

3.2 The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the transactions entered inns by de Appellant were genuine transactions which were duly disclosed by the Appellant in its return of income under regular PAN.

3.3 On facts and circumstances of the case, the La CIT(A) erred by upholding the Assessment Order has inflicted double taxation of the same Income on the Appellant, as the Appellant had filed this Income u/s44AE under the regular PAN and this very same receipts are again assessed separately under this duplicate PAN

3.4 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such assessment or addition was called for.

4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition to the income of the Appellant on account of alleged cash deposit.

4.