RAMDAS GENUBHAU DHAMALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1105 & 1106/MUM/2026 (AY: 2015-16) Ramdas Genubhau vs. ITO Ward 9(2)(1), Room No 601a, 6th Dhamale – Individual, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve BLDG NO 189A GRD FLR Road, Mumbai-400020. Room No 7077 Kannmwar Nagar, No 2 Vikhroli East Mumbai-400083. PAN/GIR No: AAQPD2042M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing 04.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.05.2026

O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

These appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'Act') by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), dated 11.12.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. ITA NO.1105/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16) pertains to the quantum order and ITA No.1106/Mum/2026 pertains to the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the same AY 2015-16. The CIT(A) has confirmed both the orders passed by the AO. Since the facts are similar, both the appeals were clubbed together and heard and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA NO.1105/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16) is taken as the “lead case.”

(AY: 2015-16) are as under:

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) as well as Ld. Assessing offer is invalid and bad in law. 2. Your honor the notice under Section 148 is issued on 23/04/2022 is time barred as the last date for issue of notice was 31/03/2022 and the same is discussed and explained in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India V/s Rajiv Bansal has clarified the legislative intent behind the first proviso to Section 149(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Supreme Court had held that the extended ten-year time limit under the new regime does not apply to assessment years where the six-year limitation period under the old regime had already expired. 3. Apart from ground no 2 above, the notice under Section 148 A has been issued on 31.03.2022 by Ld. JAO which is contrary to law and against the 'Rule of Law' when the Central Government has notified faceless scheme on 29.03.2022. Pursuant to section 151A of the Act, making it mandatory for the issuance of notice u/s. 148A(b), 148A(d) as well as 148 of the Act by the Faceless Mechanism, the impugned notices especially issued u/s.148 dated 23.04.2022 is invalid and bad in law, since it has been issued contrary to law and is against the 'Rule of Law"; which impugned action of the JAO vitiates the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 by issuance of impugned notice dated 23.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act and is therefore held to be illegal and bad in law and therefore, assessment order dated 25.01.2024 needs to be treated us null in eyes of law; 4. Without prejudice to above, your appellant hast to state that your appellant had purchased an immovable property for INR 54,50,000/- jointly with his brother Eknath Genubhau Dhamale. The copy of relevant pages of agreement along with copy of ICICI Bank Loan Sanction letter and disbursement details were submitted with Form 35 to the hon'ble CIT(A) NFAC who has completely overlooked the same and has passed order in a hurry for the reason he only knows. If the grounds of appeal 2 and 3 are not in favor of appellant then your appellant is ready to submit the complete details to prove that the property is in joint name along with his brother and as the total value of the property is INR 54,50,000/-, individual share @ 50% is INR 27,25,000/- which is below the limit of INR 50,00,000/- whereby the notice issued under Section 148 A is time barred as the time limit is 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year which means the time limit ends on 31.03.2019 (3 years from end of assessment year 2015-16).”

(AY: 2015-16) are as under:

" 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) as well as Ld. Assessing offer is invalid and bad in law. 2. Your appellant has filed appeal with your office challenging the validity of notice under Section 148 which is issued on 23/04/2022 and it is time barred as the last date for issue of notice was 31/03/2022 and the same is discussed and explained in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India V/s Rajiv Bansal has clarified the legislative intent behind the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Supreme Court had held that the extended ten-year time limit under the new regime does not apply to assessment years where the six-year limitation period under the old regime had already expired. 3. Apart from ground no 2 above, the notice under Section 148 A has been issued on 31.03.2022 by Ld. JAO which is contrary to law and against the 'Rule of Law' when the Central Government has notified faceless scheme on 29.03.2022. Pursuant to section 151A of the Act, making it mandatory for the issuance of notice u/s. 148A(b), 148A(d) as well as 148 of the Act by the Faceless Mechanism, the impugned notices especially issued u/s.148 dated 23.04.2022 is invalid and bad in law, since it has been issued contrary to law and is against the 'Rule of Law"; which impugned action of the JAO vitiates the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 by issuance of impugned notice dated 23.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act and is therefore held to be illegal and bad in law and therefore, assessment order dated 25.01.2024 needs to be treated as null in eyes of law; 4. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) has been levied which is consequential to the addition made in the assessment and since the assessment itself is subject to issue of time barred notice, it is null and void and accordingly the penalty should not sustain.”

. lower authorities. No useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings before us. The case is, accordingly, decided on the basis of materials on record. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16. The case was reopened on account of purchase of immovable property of Rs.54,50,000/-. The AO issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act and show cause notice but there was no compliance by the assessee. Hence, Rs.54,50,000/- was added u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). There was delay of 179 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued various notices which were not replied to. No adjournment was also sought. Therefore, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee has nothing more to say in respect of the appeal filed by him. He has dismissed all the grounds including validity of reopening at para 6.1 to 6.11 at pages 9 and 10 of the appellate order. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the order CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. As stated earlier, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal on the dates of hearing. He has also not requested for adjournment nor filed any written submission along with relevant details/evidences. It is thus clear that the appellant has no specific submissions in support of the grounds raised in the appeal. It is well settled that the Tribunal has the inherent power to dismiss the appeal if the appellant/revenue does not represent its case despite adequate and reasonable opportunity granted to him. Therefore, without delving further, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. However, liberty is

granted to the assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the

reasons for non-appearance/compliance/prosecution.

ITA No.1106/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16)

decided above. The assessee did not appear on the dates fixed for hearing. He has

also not requested for adjournment nor filed any written submission. Hence,

following the reasons given above, this appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 05.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 05.05.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The PCIT/CIT 4. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. Guard File

By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI