IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Ys: 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Mr. Sachiv Sahni Vs The ACIT, CC – 2(3)

151, Somerset House, Room No. 803, 8t Floor Near Breach Candy Pratishtha Bhavan Hospital, Bhulabhai Mumbai - 400020 Desai Road, Peddar Road Peddar Road, Mumbai PAN – AAEPP34499E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Upvan Gupta Revenue by Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIR DR Date of Hearing 25.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue challenging the different impugned orders respectively passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-

23.

2. Since all the issues involved in these three appeals are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take ITA No. 6068/Mum/2025, for A.Y 2020-21 as lead case and facts narrated therein.

6068/Mum/2025, A.Y 2020-21

3. At the very outset, we noticed that assessee has moved an application for leading additional grounds before us and the contents of the same is reproduced herein below:

The applicant craves leave to raise the following by way of additional ground of appeal:

"1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred, both in law and on facts, in purporting to assume jurisdiction and frame the impugned assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in complete disregard of the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 144B/ 151A of the Act. The said assessment, having been framed dehors the faceless assessment scheme and in violation of the statutory mandate, is ex facie without jurisdiction, null and void ab initio, and liable to be quashed on this ground alone."

The aforesaid additional ground of appeal raises a pure legal issue.

In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that, the aforesaid additional ground of appeal calls for being admitted and adjudicated on merits in terms of the discretion vested in your Honours under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 and also the decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India v. CIT: 187 ITR 688.

The applicant trusts that the aforesaid request shall be acceded to.

An opportunity of being heard is prayed for.

4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we found that the additional grounds raised is same is legal in nature and goes to the roots of the case, therefore while following the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Jute Corporation India Ltd., Vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 and The NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 and also considering the facts of the present case, we allow the application for raising the additional grounds and consequently the said ground is admitted to be heard on merits.

5. Since we have allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee which is legal in nature and goes to the roots of the case and outcome of the decision of the legal ground would have effect on the other grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate the additional ground firstly which is reproduced herein below:

"1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred, both in law and on facts, in purporting to assume jurisdiction and frame the impugned assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in complete disregard of the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 144B/ 151A of the Act. The s