##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC)”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.8318/Mum/2025

(Assessment year: 2012-13)

Rekhaben Sharadkumar vs ITO Ward 42(1)(4)

Mehta Room No.733, Kautilya Bhawan,

211 Tiwari Bhawan, S Modi BKC, Mumbai 400051

Road, Kandivali West,

Mumbai-400067

PAN:AHPPM8680G

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Rushabh Mehta,

Respondent by : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Date of hearing : 10/02/2026

Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2026

O R D E R

Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC [for

brevity ‘the Ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act

1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2012-13, date of order

24.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax

Officer Ward 33(1)(7), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act date of order 12.12.2019.

2

ITA No.8318/Mum/2025

Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:

“1. The assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act")

by the Ld. Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction, invalid, bad-in-law and against the principles

of natural justice.

2. (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that reopening was done to verify the

genuineness of a particular transaction which is grossly invalid as also settled by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Manzel Dinesh Kumar Shah [2019] 101 taxmann.com 259 (SC)

and Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd và ACIT [2022] 136

taxmann.com 69 (Bom HC).

(b) The sanction granted for reopening the assessment u/s. 151 of the Act by Ld. Principal CIT-

33, MUMBAI, is mechanical devoid of any material/ evidence against the assessee and without

appreciating that there was no live nexus of the information with the allegation of escapement

of income.

3. (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in confirming addition of Rs. 45,50,000/-paid towards

purchase of property as unexplained investment and applying section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the

Act without appreciating the evidences in the form of purchase agreement and bank statements

were already placed on record and that adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted.

4. All the grounds raised are without prejudice to one another.

5. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or drop all or any of the above grounds of

appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-filer of income tax

return. During the impugned assessment year the Ld. AO had received

information with the assessee had made a transaction for transfer of capital asset

and the stamp duty value is assessed more than declare sale value amount of

Rs.45,50,000/-. The assessee purchased immovable property value amount of

Rs.45,50,000/- the TDS was also deducted. The Ld. AO got the information that

assessee made the total transaction amount of Rs.91,20,342/-. Accordingly, the

Ld. AO noted the reasons for reopening the assessment u/sec. 147 of the Act. The

3

ITA No.8318/Mum/2025

Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta

reasons for reopening of the assessment recorded reason is duly reproduced as

below:

“REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF REKHA SHARAD MEHTA FOR

A.Y. 2012-13 U/SEC. 147 OF THE Act

The assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2012-13.

2. In this case, the following information is available on individual Transaction Statement (ITS)

for F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13:-

As such REKHA SHARAD MEHTA, It is seen from the ITS information available in the computer

system that the assessee has purchased immovable property of Rs. 45,50,000/-on 02.05.2011

Hence, total investments in immovable property made by the assessee are of Rs. 45,50,000/-.

Also, the assessee has transferred of Capital Asset where stamp duty value assessed is more

than declared sale v