IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2649/MUM/2025(AY: 2014–15)

&

ITA No. 2650/MUM/2025(AY: 2015–16)

(Physical hearing)

Rattan Jodharam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Harchwani (Appeals), NFAC Delhi Block No. C 794, Income Tax Officer, Room No. 1587, Ward-2, Kalyan, Near Netaji High School, Mohan Plaza, Khadakpada, Opp Jai Baba Dham, Kalyan (W)-421301.

Ulhasnagar, 421005.

PAN: ABQPH2916R (Appellant) .. (Respondent Assessee by Shri. Subramanian Revenue by Shri. Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 11/09/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi vide order dated 20.02.2025, for the A.Y. 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, which in turn arises from the orders u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act passed by Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan on 20.03.2023.

1. The issues involved in the present appeals are identical, under similar facts and circumstances and pertains to the same assessee, therefore the aforesaid two appeals are taken up together for hearing and are disposed off under this common order.

2. ITA 2649/MUM/2024 for the A.Y. 2014-15 has been taken up as the lead case, wherein our observations and decision shall apply mutandis mutatis to the second appeal i.e. ITA

2650/MUM/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16.

3. The grounds of appeal raised in the lead case for the A.Y.

2014-15 are extracted as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer under section 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act is bad in law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the re-opening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Act, therefore the assessment order passed is bad in law.

3. On the facts and under circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the order to the records of assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

4. On the facts and under circumstances of the case and also in law, the Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the credit entries of Rs.4,36,05,730/- appearing in the Bank Account as the unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and by making an addition of Rs.4,36,05,730/- to the total income.

5. The appellant craves leave to add and/or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non- filer, whereas as per the information available on insight portal uploaded by DDIT Investigation unit-8(1), Mumbai, the assessee has credits of this Rs. 4,36,05,730/- in his Account No. WCOD279. After verification of details, it is observed by the ld. AO that during the F.Y. 2013-14 (AY 2045-15) there are credits to the tune of Rs. 4,36,05,730/- in the Over Draft account of assessee maintained with Konark Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Since the assessee has not filed his return of income, it is comprehended by the Ld. AO that the amounts credited in assessee’s account are unexplained. As per assessment order, a show cause notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued to the assessee dated 19.03.2022, thereafter the order u/s. 148A(d) has been passed on 30.03.2022 with approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Thane and accordingly the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently the case was assigned to National Faceless Assessment Centre, however due to non-availability of digital footprint, the NeFAC could not complete the assessment and has been re-assigned to the office of ld. Jurisdictional AO. Accordingly notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 16.03.2022 and 21.02.2023 along with annexures were issued to the assessee. In due course a final show cause notice was also issued to t