आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.11.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) for AY 2015-16.

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

1. The order of the Id. CIT(A) is without jurisdiction, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is opposed to the principles of natural justice.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the reassessment initiated by notice u/s 148 dated 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, which is barred by limitation u/s 149 of the Act. The extended period u/s 149(1)(b) is not applicable, as the Ld. AO wrongly treated the gross sale consideration of Rs.1,22,08,000/- as 'income represented in the form of an asset', whereas, only taxable capital gains, if any, can constitute escaped income under the Act. The reassessment proceedings are therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

3. The reassessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), in violation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and CBDT's binding instructions.

4. The Ld AO erred in holding that the sale consideration of immovable property amounting to Rs.1,22,08,000/- constitutes "income represented in the form of an asset" for the purpose of section 149(1)(b), whereas only the taxable capital gains, if any, could be regarded as income chargeable to tax.

5. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's action of treating the capital gain on sale of inherited property as short-term, disregarding sections 2(42A) and 49 of the Act and the undisputed fact that the property was acquired by the appellant's mother in 1967 and inherited by the appellant in 1995.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in denying the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement and exemption u/s. 54F, and in sustaining the addition of ₹1,22,08,000, without proper appreciation of facts, evidences furnished during written submission before the ld. CIT (A) and settled legal position.

7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.

8. For the above reasons and reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing, addition made may kindly be deleted in the interest of justice.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee/appellant is an individual. For Assessment Year 2015-16, no original return of income was filed u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Based on information received through the INSIGHT Portal under the category “NMS – Non Filers Monitoring System”, the Department noticed that during the relevant financial year the assessee had received interest income of ₹85,579/- and had sold an immovable property for a consideration of ₹1,22,08,000/-.

3.1 On the basis of the said information, proceedings u/s. 148A were initiated and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 02.04.2022 after passing order u/s. 148A(d).

3.2 In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of income on 26.02.2024 declaring total income of ₹9,02,230/-. In the said return, the assessee disclosed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of ₹7,44,038/- arising from sale of immovable property. The assessee explained that the property originally belonged to her mother, who had acquired the property in the year 1967. The property was subsequently settled in favour of the assessee and other legal heirs in the year 1995. The assessee computed the capital gains as Long Term Capital Gain by considering indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement and further claimed exemption u/s. 54F in respect of investment made in a residential house.

3.3 During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish documentary evidences in support of the