SHRI RAMCHANDRA GANA BHAGAT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1479/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 June 2026AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) and for the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was admitted, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's medical condition. The assessee sought to have the appeal admitted before the ITAT, citing genuine reasons for non-compliance and delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal should be admitted despite dismissal for non-prosecution due to medical reasons, and whether the matter should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 151,Section 48,Section 54B,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: MUMBAI

Hearing: 24.06.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1479/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Shri Ramchandra Gana ITO Ward 41(4)(3) Bhagat KautilyaBhavan, BKC House No. 774, Bunglow Road, vs. BandraKurla Complex, ShirSamarthaBaithak Hal Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400020. UsarliKhurd, ONGC Complex Panvel, Raigad, Maharashtra, 410221.

PAN: AQIPB9321B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Hari Krishan (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar V., Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 30.08.2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, wherein the Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is invalid and bad-in-law, because it has been passed in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

1.1 It is respectfully submitted that, one more opportunity may be allowed to the assessee to file the details/Information/documents before the Assessing Officer/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The re-opening of assessment in this is case invalid and bad in law as the notice u/s 148 has been issued after the expiry of the period of six years from the end of the Assessment Year, permitted u/s 149 of the Income-tax Act. The notice u/s 148 as well as the consequent impugned assessment order therefore are also invalid and bad in law, the same may be kindly quashed/cancelled. 3. The re-opening of assessment in this case u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act is invalid and bad in law, as the copy of the prior approval/sanction obtained u/s 151 of the Income-tax Act, has not been provided to the assessee. The notice u/s 148 and the consequent impugned assessment order are also therefore invalid and bad in law. The same may be quashed. 4. The assessment order passed in this case is invalid and bad-in-law as it has been passed without issuing the statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income- tax Act even though the assessee filed its return of income on 07- 10-2018 in response to the notice dated 28-03-2018 issued u/s 148 of the Income- tax Act. 5. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,84,60,000/- made by the Assessing officer under the head "Income from other sources". 5.1 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, the addition of Rs. 1,84,60,000/- has been made on account of sale consideration for sale of urban agricultural lands. As such, the sale consideration has to be considered for computation of Capital Gains after giving deductions u/s 48, u/s 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act. (a) The land in question was ancestral land owned by the following co-owners. (i) Shri Ramchandra Gana Bhagat (the assessee) (ii) Shri Devender Gana Bhagat (iii) Shri Ananta Gana Bhagat (iv) Smt. Ashabhai Kamlakar Bhagat (b) The assessee's share in the sale consideration comes to only Rs. 2,08,10,000/- The Fair Market Value (FMV) of the share of the assessee as on 01-01-2001 is to be adopted as the Cost of acquisition. The total share of the assessee in the Fair Market Value of the two land as on 01-01-2001 as per the Valuation report dated 15-01- 2026 of Mr.Mangesh Y. Deshpande, the Registered Valuer comes to Rs. 54,93,139/-. It has to be allowed as deduction u/s 48 of the Income Tax Act, in computing the Capital Gains. (c) The assessee has purchased agricultural land of Rs. 11,00,000/-. The assessee has also purchased a residential flat by investing of Rs. 55,50,000/. These investments have to be considered for deduction u/s 54B & u/s 54F respectively of the Act.” 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 basis information that the assessee has sold certain immovable property valued at Rs. 46,00,000/- which has escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 was issued. In response to the same, assessee filed his return of income, declaring total income at Nil. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee and after, calling for the information and explanation, the Assessing Officer observed that the land sold by the assessee was a barren land and no agriculture activity was being carried out and therefore, the same cannot be considered as an agriculture land and following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Fazal bhoy Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (176 ITR 523), it was held that the claim of the assessee that the agricultural land situated at Usarli Khurd, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad was sold was not found acceptable and the assessee’s share in the above- mentioned land at Rs. 1,84,60,000/- was brought to tax as ‘income from other sources’.

3.

The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has since dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal as well as genuine reasons for non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A). In this regard, our reference was drawn to the application filed by the assessee as well as the medical records of the assessee and it was submitted that due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee on account of his medical conditions, the matter could not be attended before the ld. CIT(A) as well as there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that there was no malafide or gross negligence on the part of the assessee and no undue advantage would be obtained by the assessee from the delay in filing the appeal as well as non-appearance before the ld. CIT(A). It was accordingly submitted that the appeal of the assessee be admitted and given that there is no finding on the merits of the case, the matter may be remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits.

5.

The ld. DR has been heard, who has relied on the order passed by the lower authorities. At the same time, it was fairly submitted that given that there is no finding on the merits of the case, where the Bench so decide, the matter may be remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

6.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed ex parte qua the assessee and there is no finding on the merits of the case. The assessee has put forward a reasonable explanation as to the reasons for non-appearance before the ld. CIT(A) as well as the delay in filing the present appeal. Considering the contents of the application so filed duly supported by the medical records, we find that there was a reasonable cause for the non-appearance as well as the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the appeal is admitted and the matter is remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 29.06.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →