IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jayashree Mukund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(2)(3), Marathe, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bldg. No. 8, Flat No. 9, Sachin Mumbai-400051.

Chs, Mithagar Road, Mulund East, Mumbai-400081.

PAN/GIR No: ABDPM3677K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Vipul Joshi Respondent by Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 20.02.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

”1. The AO erred on facts and in law in denying the deduction u/s 54 though the appellant had appropriated the entire capital gain as provided u/s.54(2) before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s. 139.

2. The AO erred in not considering the fair market value of the property to be considered as cost of acquisition.

3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the AO erred in not considering the sum of Rs.5,00,000 paid before the due date u/s. 139(1) as appropriation towards the purchase of the new house.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter and amend the Grounds of appeal.”

3. The appellant has filed revised/ additional grounds of appeal as under:-

“REVISED/ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT

1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the initiation of reassessment proceeding by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148A r.w.s. 148 of the Act is bad in law

1.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the ground mentioned above, the re-assessment proceedings are bad in law on account of the following:

(i) The case of the Appellant did not fall within the parameters laid down by section 147 r. w s. 148A, 148, 149 & 151 of the Act;

(ii)The necessary preconditions for initiating the reassessment proceeding and completion thereof were not satisfied.

(iii) The notice u/s. 148 of the Act is time barred in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Тахmаnn 238 (SC).

1.3 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

2. ADDITION AS LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY -RS. 73,46,310/-

2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making the addition on account of alleged capital gaina arising from the transfer of a flat belonging to the Appellant.

2.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that-The Appellant was entitled for the benefit of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. 2.3 Without prejudice to the generality of the ground mentioned above, the Appellant most respectfully submits that Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that-

2.3.1 The Appellant had invested the entire sales consideration arising from transfer of her flat towards the purchase of a house property within a period of one year from such transfer and, as such, was eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act.

2.3.2 The Appellant had invested entire sales consideration towards the purchase of a house property before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(4) of the Act and as such, was eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act.

2.3.3. The provisions of section 139 were amended only by Finance Act, 2019 and were prospectively made applicable from A.Y. 2020- 21 mandating an Assessee to file return of income if his total income exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to income tax before giving effect to the provisions of section 54 of the Act.

2.3.4 The Appellant was entitled for the