GANPAT THAKUR (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BALARAM GOPINATH THAKUR),RAIGAD vs. I.T.O., WARD-28(1)(2), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1954 & 1955/MUM/2025
(A.Y. 2013-14)
Ganpat Thakur (Legal heir of Late Shri Balaram
Gopinath Thakur)
House No. 73, Bhendakhal,
JNPT, Behing Vittal
Mandir, Uran,
Raigad-400707. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward
28(1)(2),
Room No. 328, 3 rd Floor,
Tower no. 3, Vashi Railway
Station Complex,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AOLPT8312H
Appellant
..
Respondent
Appellant by :
Ms. Ritika Agarwal
Respondent by :
Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Date of Hearing
29.09.2025
Date of Pronouncement
30.09.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 21.02.2025 passed u/s.
250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14. P a g e | 2
ITA NO. 1954 & 1955/mum/2025. 2. The grounds of appeal are as followed:
“ITA No. 1954/Mum/2025
The Appellant individual is aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/08/2017
passed u/s. 144 r w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order dated 10/10/2019
passed u/s. 154 of the Income-Tax Act. 1961 by the Income Tax Officer Ward-
28(1)(2), Mumbai (AO) and is in appeal
BECAUSE, the impugned proceedings are void ab initio since notice u/s. 148 has not been validly served on the Appellant, thereby making entire proceedings null and void
2 BECAUSE, the impugned assessment order could not have been passed u/s. 144
of the Act in absence of valid service of notice u/s 142(1) and section 144 of the Act.
3 BECAUSE, the AO was duty bound to serve the notice by hand delivery or affixture as per CPC where the notices were not being served through post.
Addition of Rs. 126,00,000/- under the head Short term Capital Gain ("STCG)
4 BECAUSE, the AO has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs.
126,00,000/- as short term capital gain on assignment of leasehold rights in said plot to Mr. Habib Umer Khan (Prop. M/s. Planet Builders and Developers).
BECAUSE, while calculating the short term capital gain of Rs.1,26,00,000/-, the AO has erred in law and on facts in considering the cost of acquisition of "leasehold rights" in the said plot as nil instead of Rs.1,98,00,000/- and indexation thereto.
BECAUSE in any case, the amount received on assignment of award received on compulsory acquisition of the original land is exempt from tax.
Unexplained cash credit Rs.24,50,000/- and accrued interest on it Rs. 155,167/-:
BECAUSE, the AO has erred in law and on facts in treating an amount of Rs. 24,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit.
BECAUSE, the AO has erred in law and on facts in calculating Rs.155,167/- as accrued interest @ 9.5% on deposit of Rs.24,50,000/- and treated it as income of the Appellant.
BECAUSE, the AO has erred in law and on facts in duplicating the income and the application to the tune of Rs 24,50,000/-.
The Appellant firm craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, withdraw or delete any grounds of appeal.
1. BECAUSE, the Impugned penalty proceedings are vold ab initio since notice dated 28/08/2017 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) for initiation of penalty has not been validly served on the Appellant, thereby making entire proceedings null and void.
BECAUSE, the notice for initiation of penalty is invalid and vague since the AO has not mentioned whether the penalty is for "concealment" or for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income".
P a g e | 3
ITA NO. 1954 & 1955/mum/2025. 3. BECAUSE, the AO has erred in initiating penalty for "concealment of income"
but levying penalty amounting to Rs.45,18,148/- on the ground that the assessee had filed "Inaccurate particulars of income" amounting to Rs.152,05,167/-.
BECAUSE, the AO has not considered that the conditions prescribed u/s 271(1)(c) were not fulfilled for levy of penalty for the additions made.
BECAUSE, the AO has erred in levying penalty amounting to Rs.45,18,148/-on the ground that the assessee had filed "inaccurate particulars of income" amounting to Rs.152,05,167/-.
The Appellant firm craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, withdraw or delete any grounds of appeal.”
As common facts are involved in both the appeals, these are being disposed off by a common order.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, was a farmer, and had not filed his return of income. Subsequently, on the basis of information available with the department, the ld. AO issued a notice u/s. 148 on 04.11.23016
requiring him to file return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. As no compliance was made to any of the notices, the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, computing income at Rs.
15,20,51,167/- comprising of capital gains and unexplained cash credit. He also initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Aggrieved, by the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Subsequently, due to non-compliance by the assessee during penalty proceedings also, ld. AO levied a penalty of Rs. 45,18,148/- u/s.
271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before ld. CIT(A) against the assessment as well as the penalty order.
P a g e | 4
ITA NO. 1954 & 1955/mum/2025. Due to non-compliance during the appellate proceedings as well, ld
CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals ex-parte vide orders dated 21.02.2025. Against these orders, the assessee has filed appeals before the Tribunal.
4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was an illiterate farmer who is no more now and the appeal is filed by this legal heir. It has been further explained that due to lack of awareness, proper compliance could not be made during the assessment, penalty and appellate proceedings. He has, therefore, requested for remanding both the orders to ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
Ld. DR has not controverted the above proposition.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessment order as well as the penalty order to ld. juri ictional AO for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the ld. AO.
6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 30.09.2025 (PAWAN SINGH)
(RENU JAUHRI)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
P a g e | 5
ITA NO. 1954 & 1955/mum/2025. Place: Mumbai
Date 30.09.2025
Anandi.Nambi/STENO
आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.