##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH

MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.2303/Mum/2026

(Assessment Year :2015-16

Deputy Commissioner Vs. The N M Petit Charity

of Income Tax Fund

608, 6th Floor 4th Floor, UCO Bank

MTNL Building Building, 359, Dr. D N

Cumballa Hills Road, Fort, Mumbai

Pedder Road 400 001

Mumbai- 400 026

PAN/GIR No.AAATT0804B

(Appellant) .. (Respondent

Assessee by Shri J D Mistri, Sr. Adv

Revenue by Shri Ganesh Sudhakar Bare,

CIT DR

Date of Hearing 14/05/2026

Date of Pronouncement 20/05/2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M)

The aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the Revenue

against the order dated 09/12/2025 passed by the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, arising out

of assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section

2

ITA No.2303/Mum/2026

The N M Petit Charity Fund

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-

16.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are reproduced

hereunder:-

1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding that the reassessment order passed

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s 1448 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated

27.09.2021 became infructuous and unsustainable solely on the

ground that the revisionary order u/s. 263 of the Act was quashed

by the Hon’ble ITAT, and further erred in not adjudicating the issues

on merits, including the substantive addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/-

made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer of immovable

property."

2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A), NFAC erred in treating the reassessment order as non est

without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had conducted

detailed enquiries and independently established that a transfer

within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act had taken place

during the relevant previous year, and further erred in not

examining whether the receipt of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- pursuant to

consent terms and handing over of possession constituted transfer

under section 2(47)(v) of the Act r.w.s 53A of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882."

3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the department had not

accepted the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No.

1918/Mum/2020 dated 30.08.2021 quashing the revisionary order

u/s. 263 of the Act and had preferred an appeal u/s. 260A before

the Hon’ble High Court in ITXA (L) No. 31768 of 2022, which was

erroneously withdrawn on account of low tax effect in view of CBDT

Circular dated 17.09.2024 and steps are being taken for reviving

the appeal of the Revenue in terms of para 2 of the Hon’ble High

Court’s order dated 11.10.2024 in ITXA (L) No. 31768 of 2022 (as

the case falls under the exceptions provided in para 3. 1(1) of

3

ITA No.2303/Mum/2026

The N M Petit Charity Fund

Instruction No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024), therefore the issue has

not attained finality and remains open for adjudication on merits."

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or

withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts borne out from the record are that the

impugned assessment order had been passed by the Assessing

Officer pursuant to and in consequence of the revisionary order

passed under section 263 by the learned CIT(E), whereby the

original assessment was set aside for fresh adjudication.

However, the said revisionary order passed under section 263

itself came to be quashed by the Coordinate Bench of the

Tribunal vide order dated 30/08/2021 passed in ITA

No.1918/Mum/2020. Thus, the very foundation and

jurisdictional basis upon which the consequential assessment

order stood erected had already ceased to survive in the eyes of

law.

4. It is an admitted and undisputed position before us that

against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal quashing the

revisionary proceedings under section 263, the Revenue had

initially preferred appeal before th