IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4691/MUM/2025(A.Y: 2013-14)

Shri Jamanlal N Gulati HUF Vs. ACIT-20(2)

C/o- G. P. Mehta & Co. CAS, 807, Room No. 217, II Floor, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 013 PAN: AAAHJ3195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented by : Shri G. P. Mehta, Ld. AR Department Represented by : Ms. Kavita Kaushik (Sr. DR.)

Date of conclusion of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

O R D E R

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated

16.07.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi[hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”],passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissedby the Ld.

CIT(A) on the ground that the appeal wasbarred by limitation.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the proceedings of authorities below are that the assessee is an HUF deriving income from business and income from other sources. The return of income for the assessment year under appeal was e-filed on 20.09.2013 showing total income at Rs 1,71,91,860/-. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02.09.2014 and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and in response, the Chartered Accountant of the assessee filed the details and attended the assessment proceedings. In the assessment order, the AO made expenditure on account of telephone expenses of Rs. 7,661/-, Motor car expenses of Rs. 28,789/- and addition on account of disallowance claimed u/s 54F at Rs.

2,42,29,458/-, thus the total income assessed at Rs. 4,14,77,770/-.

3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred the appeal before Ld.

Ld. CIT(A) who did not admit the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation.

4. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. The orders passed by the learned lower authorities are bad in law and bad in facts.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short CIT(A)) has grossly erred in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant on 26.04.2016 in physical Form 35 was not a valid filing of appeal and has further erred in dismissing the appeal as time barred.

3. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in holding that there was a delay of 125 days in filing of appeal in E- form 35 and - has further erred in not considering the explanation of the appellant, even through no objection was raised for filing of form 35 in physical form.

4. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is ab initio void, inasmuch as, no notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act, - 1961 was isued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer competent to exercise jurisdiction in appellant's case in accordance with Board's Circular.

5. The Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in rejecting appellants’ claim of exemption u/s 54 F at Rs.2,42,49,458/-even though all the conditions prescribed vide the said section were duly satisfied.

6. The learned Assessing officer has grossly erred in disallowing exemption claimed u/s 54F of the I. T. Act, 1961, in respect of capital gain arising on transfer of immovable properties (Land) by holding that the appellant was owning multiple residential houses on the date of purchase of a " residential house" even though appellant never owned any residential house, the income where of, either notional or real was chargeable to tax under chapter IV C of the Act. Reasons assigned for the impunged disallowance are wrong and contrary to the provisions of law.

7. The learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in not allowing credit for TDS at Rs.1, 10, 164/- No reason has been assigned for the same.

8. Having