MADHUKAR TALWALKAR HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6464/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2026AY 2013-144 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee repeatedly failed to appear for hearings despite opportunities. The Tribunal cited the inherent power to dismiss appeals when a party does not appear.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the AO and subsequent confirmation by the CIT(A). The appeal raised grounds regarding the validity of the ex-parte order and the addition of capital gains. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the AO was valid and whether the addition of capital gains was justified. The primary issue leading to dismissal was the assessee's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 50C,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Biyayananda Pruseth (AM) Dr. A.B. Nair Road, Juhu to C-43, G Block, BKC

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Biyayananda Pruseth (AM)

ITA No. 6464/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14)

Madhukar Talwalkar HUF Vs. ITO Ward 34(2)(1) C-37/40, Pandurang CHS Kautilya Bhavan C-41, Dr. A.B. Nair Road, Juhu to C-43, G Block, BKC Mumbai-400 049. Bandra-E, Mumbai-51. PAN : AAEHM1442C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Respondent by Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date of Hearing 12.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2026

ORDER Per Bijayananda Pruseth (AM) :

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) dated 29.08.2025 for assessment year (in short, ‘AY’) 2013- 14.

2.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under :-

1.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in passing ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s 147

a. providing the reasons recorded by his predecessor and merely on borrowed satisfaction

b. without mentioning the date of recording the reasons

c. without mentioning who has recorded the reasons

2 ITA No. 6464/Mum/2025 Madhukar Talwalkar HUF d. without mentioning whether approval of the authority required is taken.

2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in passing ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 without disposing of the specific objections raised by the Appellant.

Without prejudice to the above, 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in adding Rs. 1,75,50,000/- being 1/4th share of the property sold amounting to Rs. 7,02,00,000/- thereby treating the same as short term capital gain instead of as Long Term Capital Gains. The Learned AO has completely ignored the Family arrangement entered on 16/04/2001 wherein the date of purchase of said property is mentioned as 4th December, 1986 and adopting Stamp Duty valuation u/s 50C without even referring the same to the DVO.

4.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and charging interest u/s 234A, B & C & D.

5.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the same additions without considering the submissions made by the Appellant.

[B] Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays Your Honour;

1.

To quash the ex-parte order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147.

2.

To delete the addition of Rs. 1,75,50,000/- being 1/4th share of the property sold amounting tp Rs. 7,02,00,000/- and treated the same as STCG and refer the Stamp Duty Valuation to DVO.

3.

To delete the interest u/s 234A, B, C and D which is wrongly charged and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).

[C] General: - The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion.

This appeal is filed in time and may be please allowed.

3 ITA No. 6464/Mum/2025 Madhukar Talwalkar HUF A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted at the time of hearing.

3.

The case was fixed for hearing on 05.03.2026. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Subsequently, the case was adjourned thrice and fixed for hearing on 23.03.2026 and 26.03.2026. Finally, case was fixed for hearing on 12.05.2026, but again on this date also none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was filed. It has also not filed any written submission and corroborative details in support of the grounds of appeal. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in prolonging the litigation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol Vs. Union of India (Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009), has held that it is axiomatic that no Court or Tribunal is supposed to continue proceedings before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possess. The Hon’ble High Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 206 while deciding the matter. It is now well settled that the Tribunal has the power to dismiss the appeal if the assessee was not represented in its case despite adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard granted to it. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the reasons for non-compliance to the notices issued to it.

4.

In the result appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai : Dated: 26.05.2026

4 ITA No. 6464/Mum/2025 Madhukar Talwalkar HUF

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. CIT-concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file By order

(Dy/Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, 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 →