| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4817 & 4816/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Sika Properties Pvt. Ltd. Ward – 3(3)(2), Mumbai Cassinath Building Vs

17 A.K. Nayak Marg Mumbai - 400001 [PAN: AAACS5212M]

अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, A/Rs Revenue by : Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. A/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

I.T.A. No. 4817 & 4816/Mum/2025 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders dated 22/05/2025 and 21/05/2025 by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively.

2. Since identical issues are involved in both the appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. Since the underlying facts in the issues are identical, we heard the representatives on the facts of AY 2005-06. The common grievance read as under:-

“1) The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in erroneously disallowing the condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal as "in-limine, disregarding the constraint faced by your appellant in filing the appeal, in as much as, the assessment order appealed before him was received after a delay of 20 months, that too not accompanied by the Notice of demand and Income Tax Computation form (ITCF), which are mandatory attachment for appeal filing, and whereas the assessing officer failed to provide - the reasons for delay in service of assessment order, Notice of Demand and ITCF despite the reminders, the period of filing appeal fell during COVID Pandemic and the appellant ultimately filed the appeal with the available documents, resulting in delay...

2) The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in not providing an opportunity of personal hearing before dismissing our appeal by disallowing condonation of Delay.

3) The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in not dealing with the following Grounds of Appeal on merits, that clearly indicated that the order passed by the assessing officer u/s 147 r.w.s.254 of the Act was in not in accordance with the direction of Hon'ble ITAT "H" Bench vide order dated 09.06.2017 i) The order passed by the learned assessing officer is bad in law and should be quashed in as a) while giving effect to the order of Hon'ble ITAT the learned assessing officer did not follow directions mentioned therein.

b) the learned assessing officer erred in law and on facts on incorrectly relying upon S.292BB ii) Without prejudice, the order passed by learned assessing officer was served after almost 20 months much after the limitation period specified u/s 153 of the Act should be considered as void and as it was neither accompanied by Notice of Demand and Income Tax Computation Form nor provided thereafter despite reminders.

Your appellant craves leave to add to alter or vary any of the Grounds of Appeal set out herein above.”

3. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the quarrel travelled up to the Tribunal and the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 3354 & 3353/Mum/2015, held as under:-

“We have heard the counsel for both the parties and we have also perused the material place on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the assessee himself suo moto offered such income in the return of income filed for AY 2009-10 to 2013-14 under the head income from house property. Since the assessee himself has "suo moto' offered such income under the head 'income from house property, therefore the AO was competent to reopen the assessment for the year under consideration. However, it has been brought to our notice by Ld. AR