IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM ITA No.8221/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Senthilkumar Thangaraj ITO-WARD 42(3)(3), Mumbai

204, B-Wing, Eshwari Co-op Society, Room No. 610, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Rajendra Prasad Nagar, 60 feet Road, 41 to C-43, G-Block, BKC, Bandra Vs.

Matunga Labour Camp, Mumbai (East), Mumbai-400051

400019.

PAN/GIR No. ALNPT1800D (Appellant) : (Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Respondent by : Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat – Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 05/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06 /03/2026

O R D E R

Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee was preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of Order 18/09/2025. The impugned order emanated from the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (for brevity “Ld. AO”), order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s, 144B of the Act), date of the order 26/03/2023.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a salaried individual who filed the return of income under section 139 of the Act, declaring total income of Rs.7,01,880/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,55,330/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act against the gross total income of Rs.8,57,211/-. Subsequently, the Ld. AO initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground that income amounting to Rs.2,03,816/- had escaped assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. AO. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was passed ex parte, wherein the Ld. AO made an addition on account of purchase of property amounting to Rs.47,00,000/- and also rejected the assessee’s claim of deduction under Chapter VI- A of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), raising both legal as well as merit-based grounds. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds raised by the assessee but, on merits, set aside the additions to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo assessment. Being further aggrieved by the impugned appellate order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.

3. The learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that the assessee has filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 51, which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR primarily challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. AO in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, contending that the alleged escapement of income was less than Rs.50 lakh. It was submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 has been placed in the paper book at page 73. The Ld. AR contended that for AY 2016-17, the reopening proceedings were initiated on 27.07.2022 on the basis of the belief that income amounting to Rs.2,03,816/- had escaped assessment under section 147 of the Act. According to the Ld. AR, since the alleged escapement of income is less than Rs.50 lakh, the issuance of notice beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation. Therefore, the Ld. AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act. 4. In support of the above contention, the Ld. AR respectfully placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, D-Bench in the case of Manojbhai Parsottambhai Poriya v. ITO (ITA No. 1731/Mum/2025, AY 2017- 18, order dated 15.05.2025). The relevant observations of the Coordinate Bench are reproduced hereunder:

3. We have heard the rival submissions. At the outset, it has been mentioned by Ld. AR that since the amount involved in this case is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and more than three years period has elapsed after AY 2017-18, therefore, the notice u/s 148 could not have been issued on 20.07.2022 i.e. beyond three years as per the provisions of the Act. Ld.AR