##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“C” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

& SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 4538/MUM/2025 (AY : 2014-15)

(Physical hearing)

Prem Sagar Chopra (since ITO - 16(1)(3) Mumbai,

deceased) through Neelam Prem Vs Room No. 438, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.

Sagar Chopra (wife), Road, Churchgate,

Sagar Villa Road No. 12A, JVPD Mumbai – 400020.

Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai,

Maharashtra – 400049.

[PAN No. AAPPS2469E]

Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Assessee by S/Shri Vipul Joshi and Prashant Ghumare,

Advocates

Revenue by Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR (virtually)

Date of institution of appeal 16.07.2025

Date of hearing 09.10.2025

Date of pronouncement 29.12.2025

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated

30.06.2025 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised revised following grounds

of appeal:

1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION

1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order

u's. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] framed and passed on 30.06.2025

by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

(NFAC), Delhi ['Ld. CTT (A)') is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the

same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Act and the scheme and

as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law.

Prem Sagar Chopra through LR’s Neelam Prem Sagar Chopra

ITA No. 4538/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15)

12 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the appellate order so passed is

bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse.

2. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

2.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order

so framed in bad in law and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the principles

of Natural Justice.

2.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above ground, in the facts and the

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in –

(i) not granting proper, sufficient, reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to

the Appellant while passing the appellate order, and

(ii) not granting an opportunity of personal hearing.

3. CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT

3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in initiating the

reassessment proceeding and framing the assessment of the Appellant by invoking

the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act.

3.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that:

(i) The case of the Appellant did not fall within the parameters laid down by section

147 r.w.s. 148, 149 & 151 of the Act;

(ii) The necessary preconditions for initiating the reassessment proceeding and

completion thereof were not satisfied.

3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law,

the reassessment framed is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:

4. ADDITION OF Rs. 1,75,47,681/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT

4.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the

CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making addition of the amount

of Rs. 1,75,47,681/-u/s. 68 of the Act, as alleged unexplained income.

2

Prem Sagar Chopra through LR’s Neelam Prem Sagar Chopra

ITA No. 4538/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15)

4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in –

(i) Basing his action only on surmises, suspicion and conjecture,

(ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; and

(iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant.

4.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law,

no such disallowance was called for.

4.4 Without prejudice to the above, assuming-but not admitting - that some

addition was called for, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the computation of

the addition made by the A.O. is not in accordance wit