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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1152/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2026AY 2015-165 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the obligation to file a return under Section 139(1) is not limited to cases where income exceeds the basic exemption limit. The purchase of a high-value property triggered reassessment, and the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of funds.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the validity of a notice under Section 148, arguing it was time-barred and issued contrary to the faceless scheme. The assessee also contended that their income was below the taxable limit and thus they were not liable to file an ITR, making the addition and penalty invalid.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment notice was validly issued considering time limitations and procedural requirements, and whether the obligation to file a return is solely based on exceeding the taxable income limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151A,Section 139,Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SANDEEP GOSAIN & BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri. ( SR. DR. )

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083565125(1) dated 11-Dec-2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

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 271F 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.

5.

The Income of the appellant was below taxable limit for AY 2015-16. The appellant has filed an appeal against Order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 as the Ld. AO has made an addition of 54,50,000/- for a property which is in joint name and the whole addition is done on appellant's PAN. The payment of the property was done by taking loan from family member as there were no earning during the AY 2015- 16 and hence the appellant was not liable to file ITR and hence has not filed his ITR.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. From the case records, we note that summons in this case were sent by the Registry through speed post as well as email. More than one month has passed since the summons were issued at the address provided by the assessee in Form 36; therefore, drawing an inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service of the summons/notice has been duly effected.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. DR present in the Court is ready with the arguments; therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

4.

From the records, we find that the assessee was also ex parte before the ld. CIT(A), and the ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the merits of the additions in para No. 5.3 of the order and the same is reproduced herein below:

5.3 Ground No. 2 relates to the appellant's contention that his income was below the taxable limit for A.Y. 2015-16 and therefore he was not liable to file an income tax return. It is further submitted that the addition of Rs.54,50,000/- in the reassessment order pertains to a jointly owned property, partly funded by loan from a family member, and hence non-filing of return should not attract penalty u/s 271F. The contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The obligation to file a return u/s 139(1) is not restricted only to cases where income exceeds the basic exemption Ilmit. The appellant had undertaken a high-value transaction by way of purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.54,50,000/-, which triggered reassessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant neither filed a return nor submitted any evidence to explain the source of investment. Even during penalty proceedings, no submissions were made.

5.

After hearing the submissions of the ld. DR and going through the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the return was not filed by the assessee on the ground that the income of the assessee had not exceeded the basic exemption limit. However, in our view, the obligation to file the return under Section 139(1) is not restricted only to cases where the income exceeds the basic exemption limit. As per the facts, the assessee had undertaken a high-value transaction by way of purchase of immovable property, which triggered the reassessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee neither filed a return nor submitted any evidence to explain the source. Even during the penalty proceedings, no submissions were made. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

6.

No new facts, circumstances, or documents have been placed on record by the assessee in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee and uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A).

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 30.06.2026

RY-Sr PS Copy to: RAMDAS GENUBHAU DHAMALE, BLDG NO 189A GRD FLR RM NO 7077 KANNMWAR NAGAR , NO 2 VIKHROLI 1 EAST, MUMBAI-400083, MAHARASHTRA

ITO 9(2)(1), ROOM NO 601A, 6TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR 2 BHAVAN, MAHARISHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA

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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →