IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Manish Vashdev vs. Assessing Officer, ITO Ward 2(2)

Khemchandani, Kalyan, New mansarovar chs ltd, B wing. Kalyan-Dombivali-421301.

Parmeshwari villa, Flat no. 101, Near Mira vatika, B/H Shiv Mandir Ambernath East, Thane-421501.

PAN/GIR No: AYHPK4646D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Mr. Ravi Hemnani Respondent by Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (SR DR)

Date of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 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, (NFAC), Delhi, [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 06.10.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.

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

“1. Ground No. 1 - Erroneous treatment of return as invalid On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the return of income furnished by the appellant in response to notice issued under section 148 was invalid, merely on the ground that the return was furnished belatedly, without appreciating that any return furnished in response to a notice under section 148 constitutes a valid return. irrespective of the date of filing. The same has Section

148(1) mandates that the assesse shall furnish a return in the same manner as if it were a return u/s 139. Courts have consistently held that any return furnished in response to section 148 is a valid return and the AO is bound to consider it.

2. Ground No. 2- Dismissal of appeal as non-maintainable The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable and failed to adjudicate on merits, though the assessment order passed under section 147/144 is an appealable order u/s 246A and the appellant had a statutory right to challenge the addition.

3. Ground No. 3 - Violation of principles of natural justice The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without granting proper opportunity of hearing and without deciding the matter on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

4. Ground No. 4- Validity of Reassessment Without prejudice to the above, the reassessment order passed u/s 147 is bad in law as the AO failed to consider the return itself filed in response to the notice u/s 148 and proceeded ex-parte. The Assessing Officer without considering the facts of the case considered the Return as Invalid and also the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) stated that the Assessing Officer is correct but the fact is Assessing Officer had passed the order without hearing the case. That the assessment framed without considering the return furnished in response to notice under section 148 is bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed.

5. Non consideration / ignorance of Section 44AD That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the turnover declared by the assesse under section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assesse had duly disclosed eligible turnover for the purpose of computing income under the presumptive scheme, and ignoring the same has resulted in an incorrect and unjustified estimation of income.

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition without properly appreciating the fact that once the assesse declares income under section 44AD, the books of account and turnover as declared cannot be arbitrarily rejected without cogent reasons and without bringing any contrary evidence on record.

That the assesse craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.”

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 d