##PAGE1##

(cid:1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND

MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

ITA No.7105/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Mr. Rohan Hemant Thakkar, Income Tax Officer 22(3)(2), A 804 Prayog Building Wing A Kautilya Bhavan,

Opposite Galaxy Hotel Prabhat Colony Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs.

Road No.2 Bandra East, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 051

Mumbai – 400 055 PAN:AGNPT4221D

(Appellant) : (Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Hansraj Sanghvi, AR Respondent by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR

Date of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026

O R D E R

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'),

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals erred in confirming assessing capital gain of Rs.5662500/- on sale of capital assets as short term capital gain instead of as long term capital gain as claimed by the appellant. Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and regard being had to facts of the case capital gain on sale of said capital assets should have been assessed as long term capital gain. Reasons assigned by him are

ITA No.7105/Mum/2025 Mr. Rohan Hemant Thakkar

wrong and insufficient to justify treating gain on sale of said assets as short term capital gain.

02. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals erred in confirming rejection of claim made under section 54F of the Act on the pretext that gain on sale of said assets is short term capital

gain.

03. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals ought to have appreciated that proceeding of reassessment initiated by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act is contrary to the provisions of the Act, illegal, invalid and void ab-initio considering following facts: (a) Notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on the basis of mere change of opinion and in absence of any new tangible material in possession of Assessing Officer, (b) In the reason recorded the learned Assessing Officer himself admitted that notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on the basis of “ON VERIFICATION OF RECORD” (c) The reasons recorded are not valid one as same are undated (d) The learned Assessing Officer erred in recording in reason that there is failure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly

all material facts necessary for assessment.

04. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income tax – Appeals erred in confirming order made under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act which is contrary to the provisions of the Act, illegal, invalid, bad-in-law, ultra vires, without allowing reasonable opportunity of the hearing, without appreciating facts, submission and evidences in their proper perspective,

and without providing copies of material relied upon is liable to be annulled.

05. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234A. 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act 06 The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and / or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time

of hearing.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income dated 29.07.2011 declaring total income at Rs.9,38,240/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2013 accepting the returned income of the assessee. The assessee’s case was subsequently reopened vide noti