ASHOK BHAURAO DUMBRE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), THANE, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1730/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 August 2026AY 2015-165 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The notices were issued after the stipulated date for the relevant assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a reassessment order. The reassessment proceedings were initiated for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee contended that the proceedings were barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated after April 1, 2021, for Assessment Year 2015-16 are barred by limitation. Whether electronic service of notices through the e-filing portal is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 69,Section 282

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang ( SR. DR.)

आदेश / ORDER

PER SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083496584(1) dated 09-Dec- 2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the entire reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation and are null and void ab initio, inasmuch as: The show cause notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 21/03/2022, the order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 04/04/2022, and the notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/04/2022 all being on OR after 01/04/2021 – for Assessment Year 2015-16 and as per the Honble Supreme Court in the decision of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 has categorically recorded the concession of the Revenue that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on OR after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding at paragraph 6(c) of the impugned order that the notices were duly served electronically through the e-filing portal, which is a valid mode of service under section 282 read with Rule 127 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act being the purchase of a residential house property on 19/07/2014 (as reported by Sub Registrar, Thane-5, information code AIR 006) as unexplained investment, without appreciating that the source of investment in the said property is the sale proceeds of two residential properties sold on 21/05/2014 for Rs. 48,00,000/- and on 10/11/2014 for Rs. 45,00,000/- (aggregating Rs. 93,00,000/-), together with pension income and savings accumulated over 26 years of service in Maharashtra Police 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 93,00,000/- (comprising sale of Rs. 48,00,000/- on 21/05/2014 and Rs. 45,00,000/- on 10/11/2014, as reported by Sub Registrar, Thane-5, information code AIR 007) as taxable capital gains, without appreciating that the AO has treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 93,00,000/- as capital gains without computing the capital gains by deducting the cost of acquisition / indexed cost of acquisition as mandated under sections 48 and 49 of the Act. The entire sale proceeds cannot be treated as capital gains 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,35,000/- u/s 69 of the Act being a time deposit made on 27/10/2014 in Bank of Baroda (reported by Bank of Baroda Regional Office, Pune, information code CIB-403) as unexplained investment 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money, being cash deposited on 29/05/2014 in Bank of Baroda (reported by Bank of Baroda Regional Office, Pune, information code CIB- 410)

7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 45,708/- as interest income from other sources (on which TDS was deducted) without appreciating that the interest income is eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA (section 80TTA) of the Act

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. On the basis of information available on the Insight Portal, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had entered into various financial transactions, viz. purchase of immovable property for ₹1,26,00,000/-, sale of immovable properties for ₹93,00,000/-, a deposit of ₹9,35,000/-, cash deposit of ₹2,00,000/- and had earned interest income of ₹45,708/-.

3.

During the reassessment proceedings also, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued under sections 142(1) and 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the ex-parte assessment, on best judgment basis. The Assessing Officer treated the purchase of immovable property of ₹1,26,00,000/- and fixed deposit of ₹9,35,000/- as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act, cash deposit of ₹2,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69Aof the Act, sale proceeds of ₹93,00,000/- as income from capital gains and interest of ₹45,708/- as income from other sources. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at ₹2,30,80,708/- and taxed the same under section 115BBE of the Act

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals), however, noted that the assessee had not furnished any supporting evidence regarding the source of the investments, cash deposit or fixed deposit, nor any evidence in support of the claim under section 54 of the Act or Chapter VI-A. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed all the additions.

5.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

6.

We observe that both the assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings were computed without effective participation of the assessee and the additions were confirmed without the assessee getting an opportunity to explain the nature and source of the transactions and furnish the supporting documentary evidence.

7.

Considering the nature of the additions and the fact that the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 and the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was also adjudicated without any compliance by the assessee considering the quantum involved, in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves one effective opportunity to explain the transactions and furnish the necessary supporting evidence.

8.

Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the assessment proceedings and furnish all necessary details and supporting evidence.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 14. 08.2026 KRK, Sr. PS Copy to: ASHOK BHAURAO DUMBRE, 1, AT & POST OTUR, TALUKA 1 JUNNAR, PUNE-412409, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), THANE, ASHAR IT PARK, 6TH FLOOR, ROAD NO. 2 16Z, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE-400604, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAIBENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →