RAJBAHADUR SATYANARAYAN SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 497/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2026AY 2019-2012 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 initiation of reassessment proceedings by a non-jurisdictional AO was without jurisdiction. The notice under section 148A was not served at the correct address as per the PAN database, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold two immovable properties in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. The Assessing Officer (AO) in Jaunpur initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148A, issuing notices to an address in Jaunpur. However, the assessee's PAN indicated a Mumbai jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO are valid, and if notice served at an incorrect address vitiates the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC

For Appellant: Ms. Aasavari Kadam
For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 16/04/2026Pronounced: 06/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.496/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2019-20)

Ranbahadur Satyanarayan vs ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai Singh Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, 3, Joshiwadi, T.H. Kataria Mumbai-400012 Marg, Matunga (W), Mumbai- 400016 PAN:AAXPS7975F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.497/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2019-20) Rajbahadur Satyanarayan vs ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai Singh Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, 3, Joshiwadi, T.H. Kataria Mumbai-400012 Marg, Matunga (W), Mumbai- 400016 PAN: AAUPS1491B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Aasavari Kadam Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR) Date of hearing : 16/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 06/05/2026 O R D E R

2 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeals of the two different assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2019-20, date of orders 22.09.2025 & 26.12.2025. The impugned orders emanated from the orders of the Ld. Income Tax Officer-22(3)(6), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’), orders passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act date of both the orders 30.03.2024. 2. Both the appeals were filed with a delay of 61 days. Both the assessees filed an affidavit duly executed on 08.04.2026. The assesses have explained the delay in filing appeal before the Bench. We find that there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submission of the assessees. Accordingly, the delay for 61 days for both the assesses are condoned. 3. Bothe the appeals pertain to the different assessees an arising out of common fact. For convenience both the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of by a common order. ITA No. 496/Mum/2026 is taken as lead case and the decision rendered there in shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee sold two immovable properties situated in District of Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh for total consideration of Rs.1,06,54,000/-. The information was duly received with non Pan transaction in the system. Accordingly, the Ld. AO initiated

3 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh the proceeding u/sec. 148A of the Act. As per the provision u/sec. 148A(b) of the Act the show cause notice was issued on 21.03.2023 by the Ld. Income tax Officer, Ward-1, Jaunpur through speed post at a “known address at Jaunpur” to call the explanation with regard to the aforesaid transaction. However, the assessee did not comply the said notice. The order u/sec. 148A(d) of the Act was passed exparte by the Ld. AO on 31.03.2023 and the notice u/sec. 148 was issued on 31.03.2023 directed to file the ITR u/sec. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, on verification of PAN database the Ld. AO found that the PAN of the assessee is duly registered in the Mumbai, Maharashtra. The assessee had sold the property and it is observed that the assessee is among three co-owners who have sold separate properties for market value of Rs.1,06,54,000/- as determined by the State Registration Authority. Whereas the agreed value of the said transaction was total amount to Rs.33 lakh for two properties i.e. 22 lakh and 11 lakh as per the Sale Deed No.1425 and 1426 dated 02.03.2019 respectively. So the difference of stamp duty value was considered violation of section 50C of the Act. 5. The assessee filed the letter of objection before the Ld. AO on 23.03.2024 in compliance of the notice of the Jurisdictional Ld. AO, which is reproduced as below: “From, Ranbahadur S Singh 6,Ground Floor, Bhagwanti Niwas,T. H Kataria Marg, Bhatwadi, Mahim West. Mumbai-400016 Date: 23.03.2024

4 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh To, The Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug. Parel, Mumbai-400012.

Dear Sir, Reg: AAXPS7975F/A Y 2019-20 Sub:: ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2023-24/1062559534(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Ref: ITBA/AST/F/147(SCN)/2023-24/1062902285(1) Dated 19.03.2024 I am in receipt of your notice U/s 147(SCN) dated 19.03.2024 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the above referred subject matter. In the above matter I hereby most respectfully state as under:

1 On perusal of the above referred Show Cause Notice u/s 147 dated 19.03.2024, I came across reference of order dated 31.03.2023 passed u/s 148(d) of the Act and notice dated 31.03.2024 u/s 148. I hereby bring to your knowledge that the aforesaid notice and order both dated 31.03.2023 u/s. 148 of the Act are not received by me and I have learnt about the same for the first time from this present notice under reply and therefore I could not reply and attend to the said notice and order both dated 31.03.2023 u/s. 148, hence the same are denied for want of knowledge and fair opportunity of being heard 2 The immovable property sold was Rural Agricultural land situated within the Jurisdiction of Grampanchayat of village Nonari, ParganaGopalapur, Tehsil Madiyahu, District Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh. It being a rural place of village under grampanchayat having population of approximately 3000. Copy of Khasra of the agricultural land is attached herewith and the same is marked as Annexure “A”. 3 The said agricultural land, which is sold, was purchased in the year 1986 vide Agreement dated 20.02.1986 and 03.03.1986 jointly in the name of four brothers namely

1) Shri. Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh 2) Shri Vijaybahadur Satyanarayan Singh 3) Shri Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh

5 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh 4) Shri Samarbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Copies of the aforesaid Purchase Agreement/Sale Deed of the Agricultural Land are attached herewith as Annexure "B" 4. The said Agricultural Land was encroached by illegal occupants and they were to remove out by the Purchasers. Also in the year 2015. one brother namely Shiri Vijaybahadur Satyanarayan Singh filed a suit bearing No. 170/2015 in the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Jaunpur against the remaining three brothers in respect of the said Agricultural Land therein falsely alleging that the land came to his share under a purported arrangement. However, no injunction and or restraining order of any nature was passed in the said civil suit. Upon learning the same a suit bearing no.183/2015 was filed by one of my brother Shri Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh in the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jaunpur against Shri Vijaybahadur Satyanarayan Singh wherein Shri Samarbahadur Satyanarayan Singh and myself were made proforma defendant Since then the said Agricultural Land was under family dispute. Copies of said suit no.170/2015 and suit no 183/2015 are collectively attached herewith as Annexure "C. 5. My permanent place of residence is in Mumbai and I am a senior citizen ling under medical conditions with various ailments due to which I limited my visits to my native village at Jaunpur Meanwhile me and my other two brothers namely Shri Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh and Shri Samarbahadur Satyanarayan Singh were in critical financial crunch and in need of financial source and therefore we decided to sell our 3/4" undivided share in the said agricultural land for which we started looking for prospective purchasers. Since the said agricultural land was under aforesaid family dispute, we could not find any purchaser to purchase the same at market rate 6. In the year 2019 we fortunately got purchasers namely 1) Smt. Pushpa Girishchand Jaiswal 2) Ms. Divya Girishchand Jaiswal, 3) Smt. Neelam Pradeepkumar Jaiswal and 4) Smt. Neha Avasheso Jaiswal who agreed to purchase the Agricultural land at lower rate. In the then prevailing circumstances, we had no choice otherwise than to accept and agree the offer as under 1) They offered the total price at Rs. 33,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Three lakh only)of the Sale Deed bearing registration no.1425 and 1426 registered on 02.03.2019 are attached herewith as Annexure "D". 7. I submit herewith the statement of computation of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of Rural Agricultural Land Computation of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of Agricultural land at Village - Nonari

6 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh

Total Sale Consideration 3300000.00 Less: Index Cost Value of the Agricultural Land sold MPV as on 01.04.2001 700000.00 700000/100 x Index Cost for FY 2018-19 280 1960000.00 Long Term Capital Gain 1340000.00 1/3rd share of each brother 446666.67 The above LTCG is exempt it being Rural A agricultural land situated within the jurisdiction of a grampanchayat. 446666.00

8.

In view of the within-mentioned facts and circumstances, I hereby place my earnest request seeking that your goodself be graciously pleased to consider the above facts and complete/dispose the assessment accordingly. Thanking You.” 6. The Ld. AR invited our attention in the observation of the Ld. AO after due receiving the reply from the assessee which is noted in paragraph no.6 is reproduced “6. Reply of the assessee has been perused and considered. However, the same is not tenable and acceptable. The assessee has contended that the sold properties are in the nature of agricultural land situated in rural area and gains from its sale are not taxable. But the same time, the assessee has failed to establish that the said properties falls under the category of agricultural land and eligible for claim of exemption from the due tax. As per the sale deeds, the assessee is showing himself as agriculturist as profession. Besides the aforesaid, the assessee has also not furnished any documentary evidence like bills/vouchers of purchase of raw materials, sale of agricultural produce, transportation, Local Mandi contracts etc. On the contrary, the instant assessee has shown his income in the ITR under the heads of business and other source.

7 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Moreover, the one of the sale deeds states that the subject property is sold to residential purpose. Furthermore, on the said land there were boundaries, construction of walls found. Then, how the said property can be called as agricultural land. Hence, the claims of the assessee is not justifiable.”

7.

But without considering the same to Ld. AO determined the long term capital gain amount to Rs.22,34,584/- which is contained 1/3 share of the assessee’s transaction. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order exparte. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

8.

The Ld. AR argued and filed the additional legal ground which is reproduced as below: “Legal grounds pertaining to reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the very initiation of reassessment proceeding by the Ld. Income Tax Officer-1, Jaunpur-new ("ITO, Jaunpur"), is bad in law inasmuch as the notice under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 21.03.2023, the order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2023 were not served upon the Appellant at his proper address. Hence, the entire reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law for want of proper service. 2. The Ld. ITO, Jaunpur failed to serve the notices and order under section 148 and 148A in the manner prescribed under section 282 of the Act read with Rule 127 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") and hence, in absence of any valid service, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as well as the consequent reassessment order are void ab initio. 3. The Ld. ITO, Jaunpur was not justified in issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act to the Appellant at the address at which the plot of land, whose sale is the subject matter of consideration in the present reassessment proceeding, is situated, inasmuch as the Appellant has been residing in Mumbai, Maharashtra for the last 10 years at the address mentioned in his PAN. Therefore, there was no way for the Appellant to know that reassessment proceeding under section 148 has been initiated in his case. Hence, in the absence of valid service the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be set aside.

8 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Officer Ward-22(3)(6), Mumbai ("Ld. JAO") failed to appreciate that the Appellant has responded to the Show-cause notice dated 19.03.2024 which was served at his residential address in Mumbai. Therefore, the failure on the part of the Appellant to reply to the earlier notices because he was not aware about the same and not on account of negligence. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it is highly doubtful that the department has actually served the notice and order under section 148A of the Act on the Appellant inasmuch as even as of today, the said notices and order are not available on the e-portal of the Department, neither does the e-portal provide any status report of service of the said notices/ order on the Appellant at Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh or Mumbai, Maharashtra. 6. The Ld. A.O. is not justified in issuing the notice dated 31.03.2023 u/s. 148 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said notice has been issued by the Ld. JAO of the Appellant instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer ("FAO") and hence, the same is in violation of the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 as provided u/s. 151A of the Act. Thus, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction and therefore, bad in law. 7. There is a mismatch of DIN in the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under section 148 of the Act by the Ld. ITO, Jaunpur and the notice under section 148 which is referred to in the 'Intimation Letter' dated 13.03.2024 issued by the JAO of the Appellant. Thus the present reassessment proceedings are unlawful and bad in law and therefore, the said notice under section 148 deserves to be quashed and set aside.”

9.

Out of the seven additional grounds, the Ld. AR challenged the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO in passing the order under sections 147/143(3) of the Act, contending that no notice under section 148A(b) was served at the assessee’s address as per the PAN jurisdiction, and that the order under section 148A(d) was passed ex parte. The Ld. AR further submitted that the notice under section 148A was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer at Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, whereas the assessee falls within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at Mumbai. It was contended that, upon verification during the proceedings under section 148A, the Ld. AO himself acknowledged that the assessee is holding a PAN with jurisdiction in Mumbai, Maharashtra, even though the proceedings had been

9 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh initiated by the Assessing Officer at Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. The Ld. AR submitted that this issue has been duly considered and accepted by the Ld. AO in his order. The relevant extract of the said observation is reproduced hereunder: “1.1 On verification from the said data, it is seen that the assessee has sold 02 immovable properties situated in the district of Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh for total consideration of Rs. 1,06,54,000/-, Since, the information was prevailed with non-PAN transactions in the system. Accordingly, it was uncertain whether the said receipts have been disclosed by way of ITR or not. Hence, the proceedings u/s. 148A was initiated. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act, the show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 21.03.2023 through speed post at known address of Jaunpur District to furnish the explanation with regard to the aforesaid transactions. However, the assessee did not comply the said notice. Accordingly, the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Jaunpur on 31.03.2023 after taking prior approval of the competent authority. Subsequently, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2023 to file the ITR u/s 148 of the Act within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice. However, the assessee did not file the ITR u/s 148 of the Act within given date. Subsequently, during the assessment proceedings, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee on 04.01.2024 and 17.01.2024 alongwith the questionnaires to submit the requisite details. All the notices were issued through speed post in absence of non availability of assessee's PAN. However, the assessee did not respond the said notices.

2.

Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Jaunpur gathered the PAN of the assessee from the searching PAN database/360 degree of the department's system and found that the assessee has been residing in Mumbai for several past years. Accordingly, this case was transferred by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Jaunpur to the office of undersigned on 11.03.2024 being the actual territorial jurisdiction of the assessee.”

10 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh The Ld. AR contended that the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction for passing the order without issuing notice u/sec. 148A to the assessee. So, the entire assessment made by the Ld. AO is infructuous and liable to be quashed.

10.

The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the revenue authorities. With regard to the issue of jurisdiction for issuance of notice by the Ld. AO, the Ld. DR contended that the notice was issued based on the address available in the Sale Deed. However, in response to the specific submissions advanced by the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR did not put forth any cogent or substantive arguments.

11.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The primary issue raised by the assessee goes to the root of jurisdiction, challenging the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 148A and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. From the records, it is evident that the proceedings under section 148A were initiated by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Jaunpur, by issuing notice under section 148A(b) at an address in Jaunpur. However, it is an undisputed fact, as also acknowledged by the Ld. AO himself in the assessment order, that the assessee was holding a valid PAN and was regularly assessed within the jurisdiction of Mumbai. The said fact was subsequently verified from the PAN database, pursuant to which the case was transferred to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer at Mumbai. In such circumstances, issuance of notice under section 148A(b) by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer, coupled with the fact that the same was not served at the address available in the PAN database, vitiates the very foundation of the reassessment proceedings. Proper assumption

11 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh of jurisdiction and valid service of notice are sine qua non for initiating proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. Any defect at this stage renders the entire proceedings void ab initio. Further, the order under section 148A(d) was passed ex parte without ensuring proper service and opportunity to the assessee, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The contention of the Ld. DR that the notice was issued on the basis of the address mentioned in the Sale Deed does not cure the jurisdictional defect, particularly when the PAN-based jurisdiction was available and later acknowledged by the department itself. Accordingly, we hold that the initiation of reassessment proceedings is without jurisdiction and bad in law. The notice issued under section 148 and the consequent assessment order passed under sections 147/143(3) are hereby quashed. Since we have decided the appeal in favour of the assessee on the preliminary legal ground of jurisdiction, the other grounds raised on merits are rendered academic and do not call for adjudication. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.496 and 497/Mum/2026 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th day of May 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 06/05/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant ,

12 ITA No.496/Mum/2026 ITA No.497/Mum/2026 Ranbahadur Satyanarayan Singh Rajbahadur Satyanarayan Singh 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (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 →