IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai.

Before Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) &

Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

ITA No. 971/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Bharat Jaisinghani DCIT, Central Circle

1302/B, Beau Monde 5(2), Room No. 427 Appasaheb Marathe Marg Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Prabhadevi, Mumbai-25 Mumbai-400 051.

PAN : AEIPJ0261N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora, CA, Shri Pranay Gandhi, CA & Shri Lekh Mehta, CA Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Date of Hearing : 01/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/07/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-

In the above appeal, the appellant claims that interest under section

234A of the I.T. Act is not chargeable as per the 143(1) order passed by Central Processing Centre (Bangaluru) and the following grounds of appeal are taken accordingly :-

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Bharat Jaisinghani (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 53, Mumbai ['learned CIT(A)] in relation to the appeal against intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 20 March 2021 by the Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru ('learned AO') on the following grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: General:

1. the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appellant's appeal against order u/s 143(1) of the Act, as not maintainable, as returned income is accepted in the order under section 143(1) of the Act;

2. the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that additional claim made before the assessing officer post passing of the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act and since the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction is co- terminus with that of the assessing officer, ought to have adjudicated upon the additional claim;

3. The learned CIT(A), failed to consider the fact that the ground of appeal on erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act had been validly raised and therefore, the appeal ought to have been considered as maintainable;

Capital gains not chargeable to tax of Rs. 2,66,97,108:

Not admitting the Appellant's additional claim:

4. the learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting the Appellant's additional claim in respect of non-chargeability of his capital gains income amounting to Rs. 2,66,97,108 filed by way of a 'ground of appeal';

5. the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that additional claim made by the Appellant being a legal claim, the Appellate authority ought to have admitted the same and adjudicated judiciously and on merits in the course of the Appellate Proceedings;

Provisions of Explanation to section 55(2)(ac) of the Act as applicable at the time when the impugned OFS transactions was entered into should be applied:

6. the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that since, the additional claim made by the AO in respect of non-chargeability of capital gains arising on shares offered under Offer for Sale ('OFS') ought to have been allowed, as the computation mechanism in relation to determination of cost as per section 55(2)(ac) of the Act fails, by virtue of which the capital gains cannot be computed and hence there can be no levy of capital gains tax;

Without prejudice, cost of acquisition of the shares may be computed using the fair market value as on 31 January 2018:

7. without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered alternate legal claim of the Appellant that the cost of shares of Polycab India Ltd offered by assessee under the OFS should be considered to be Fair Market Value ('FMV') of shares as on 31 January 2018 for the purpose of computation of capital gains;

Without prejudice, provisions of section 55(2KaaWiia) of the Act cannot be imported into the provisions of section 55(21 (ac1) of the Act:

8. without prejudice to the above, failed to appreciate that the provision