IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5593/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Mitesh Suresh Shah Vs. ITO-International Tax

401, 4th Floor, Blue Heaven, Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai Nehru road, Vakola, Kautilya Bhavan, Pipeline, Santacruz (East), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400055 Bandra (East), Mumbai-

400051 PAN GIR No. AUXPS9395K /

Applicant Respondent ( ) ( )

Assessee by Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश ORDER /

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai for the assessment year 2016-17. The following grounds are reproduced below:

“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 final reassessment order framed and passed by the Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward - 4(2)(1), Mumbai ['A.O.'] u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 03.01.2023, pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ['Ld. DRP'], is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law.

1.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the final assessment order so passed is bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse.

2. DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. DRP ARE BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL

2.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the directions issued by the Ld.

DRP are bad in law and illegal.

2.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above ground, the Ld. DRP erred in not admitting the additional evidences brought on record by the Appellant.

2.3 Without further prejudice to the generality of the above ground, the Ld. DRF erred in not conducting the hearing through video conferencing in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the relevant rules; and

2.4 Otherwise also, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the directions issued by Ld. DRP were bad in law and illegal as the same were perverse and arbitrary.

3. VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

3.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the directions issued by the Ld. DRP as well as the final assessment order so framed, pursuant to the directions of DRP, is bad and illegal, as the same were framed in gross and flagrant breach of the principles of Natural Justice.

3.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above ground, in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. / Ld. DRP erred in not granting a proper, sufficient, and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing/issuing the order/directions.

3.3 Without further prejudice to the above, the A.O. erred in not considering the responses filed by the Appellant on 25.08.2021, 14.10.2021, 03.01.2022, 17.02.2022, and 16.03.2022, much less dealing with them judicially and judiciously.

3.4 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such actions were called for.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

4. CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT

4.1 The A.O. erred 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.

4.2 While doing so, the A.O. 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; and (iii) No separate speaking order disposing the objections