PATIL RANAJAGJITSINGH PADMASINHA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 4189/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 2. ITA No. 4190/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. ITA No. 4191/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. ITA No. 4192/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Patil Ranajagjitsingh ITO Padmasinha HUF IT-Office, Vashi 101 Sagar Ratan, Indl Vs. Railway Station Premise, D-265 MIDC Building, Navi TTC, IND Area, Mumbai-400 705 Turbhe, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 PAN/GIR No. AABHP5884Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Agiwal & Shri Suhas Kulkarni, Ld. ARs Revenue by Shree Kumar C., Ld. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2026

2 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These four appeals filed by the assessee arise out of separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016- 17. Since common facts and interconnected issues are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The details of appeals are as under:

A.Y. Nature of Order Appealed Against ITA No. Appeal 4189/Mum/2026 2015- Quantum Order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC 16 Appeal under section 250 dated 10.02.2026 arising from the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 22.02.2024 4190/Mum/2026 2015- Penalty Order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC 16 Appeal under section 250 dated 10.02.2026 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 08.08.2024 4192/Mum/2026 2016- Quantum Order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC 17 Appeal under section 250 dated 10.02.2026 arising from the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 26.02.2024 4191/Mum/2026 2016- Penalty Order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC 17 Appeal under section 250 dated 10.02.2026 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 09.08.2024

3 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF

4 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF jurisdiction exercised by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer vis- à-vis the Faceless Assessing Officer and other connected legal grounds. The learned CIT(A), however, upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and dismissed the appeals in limine as barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 Particulars Information forming Credit card payments of Credit card payments of basis of reopening Rs.3,63,198/- and sale of Rs.3,67,865/- and sale of immovable property for immovable property for Rs.80,00,000/- Rs.80,00,000/- Order passed under 01.04.2022 19.03.2023 section 148A(d) Notice issued under 01.04.2022 19.03.2023 section 148 Notices issued under 09.01.2023 and 08.11.2023 28.07.2023 and 08.11.2023 section 142(1) Compliance by the No compliance No compliance assessee before the Assessing Officer Assessment Order Passed under section 147 Passed under section 147 read with section 144 and read with section 144 and section 144B on section 144B on 22.02.2024 26.02.2024 Order of the learned Passed under section 250 Passed under section 250 CIT(A) on 10.02.2026 on 10.02.2026 Delay in filing appeal 170 days 166 days before the learned CIT(A) as recorded in the appellate order

5 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF 5. Consequent upon completion of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in both assessment years on the allegation that the assessee had failed to file returns of income despite information available with the Department regarding the impugned transactions and the income assessed exceeding the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer further recorded that despite issuance of penalty notices and show-cause notices, no response was received from the assessee. Accordingly, penalties came to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which were subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee challenged the penalty orders contending, inter alia, that the income itself had been wrongly assessed in the hands of the HUF due to erroneous allotment of PAN, that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct, that mere confirmation of additions does not automatically warrant levy of penalty and that the same long-term capital gains had allegedly been subjected to tax in both Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The assessee further contended that if the reassessment proceedings were held to be invalid, the consequential penalty orders would also not survive. The learned CIT(A), however, rejected the aforesaid contentions and confirmed the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) for both assessment years. 7. The chronology of penalty proceedings is summarised below:

6 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 Particulars Assessment Order Order passed under section Order passed under section giving rise to penalty 147 read with section 144 147 read with section 144 proceedings and section 144B dated and section 144B dated 22.02.2024 26.02.2024 Income assessed Rs.43,63,198/- Rs.43,67,865/- Additions forming LTCG of Rs.40,00,000/- and LTCG of Rs.40,00,000/- and basis of penalty unexplained expenditure of unexplained expenditure of Rs.3,63,198/- Rs.3,67,865/- Notice issued under 22.02.2024 26.02.2024 section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) First show-cause 08.04.2024 08.04.2024 notice Second show-cause 08.05.2024 08.05.2024 notice No compliance No compliance Compliance by the assessee during penalty proceedings Penalty Order Passed under section Passed under section 271(1)(c) on 08.08.2024 271(1)(c) on 09.08.2024 Penalty levied Rs.8,84,728/- Rs.8,86,171/- Order of the learned Passed under section 250 on Passed under section 250 on CIT(A) 10.02.2026 confirming the 10.02.2026 confirming the penalty penalty

7 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF proceedings/jurisdiction raised before the us are reproduced below:

A.Y. 2015-16 (ITA No. 4189/Mum/2026) - Validity of notice issued U/s 148 3. The notice issued by the Ld. AO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai u/s 148 dated 01.04.2022 is time barred in view of the proviso to section 149(1) as per the amended provision by the Finance Act, 2021. 4. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the notice ought to have been issued on or before 31.03.2022 i.e. within 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that for the impugned assessment year as the provisions of TOLA are not applicable and hence relying on the decision of Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) the notice may kindly be held as time barred. A.Y. 2016-17 (ITA No. 4192/Mum/2026) - Invalid Notice as the notice is issued beyond 3 years contrary to the provision of section 149(1)(b) 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the sale consideration of the impugned property of Rs. 80,00,000 which cannot be regarded as escaped income considering the provision of section 45. 3.1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if the chargeable LTCG alleged to be escaped is less then Rs. 50,00,000 and computed by the Ld. AO himself at Rs. 40,00,000 the notice issued considering the spam of 10 years in bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative ("AR") for the assessee drew our attention to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 01.04.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16. Referring to the grounds raised in appeal, the learned AR submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai under section 148 dated 01.04.2022 was barred by limitation in

8 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF view of the proviso to section 149(1) as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. It was contended that for Assessment Year 2015-16, the notice under section 148 ought to have been issued on or before 31.03.2022, being the last date falling within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and therefore the notice issued on 01.04.2022 was invalid and without jurisdiction. 10. The learned AR further submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings without properly appreciating the limitation prescribed under section 149 of the Act. It was argued that the benefit of the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 ("TOLA") was not available in the facts of the present case and, therefore, the Revenue could not rely upon the extended time limits for issuance of notice. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). Accordingly, it was submitted that the notice issued under section 148 dated 01.04.2022 being time- barred, the consequential reassessment proceedings and the assessment order passed pursuant thereto were liable to be quashed. 11. For Assessment Year 2016-17, the learned AR submitted that the notice issued under section 148 dated 19.03.2023 was beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant

9 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF assessment year and, therefore, could be sustained only if the conditions prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act were satisfied. Referring to Ground Nos. 3 and 3.1 of the appeal, the learned AR contended that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- received on transfer of the immovable property could not, by itself, be regarded as income chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment. It was submitted that under the scheme of sections 45 and 48 of the Act, only the resultant capital gains after allowing permissible deductions could constitute income chargeable to tax and not the gross sale consideration. 12. The learned AR further submitted that even according to the Assessing Officer, the alleged escaped long-term capital gain was only Rs. 40,00,000/- after allowing deduction towards acquisition cost and other related expenditure. Therefore, the income chargeable to tax alleged to have escaped assessment was admittedly less than Rs.50,00,000/-. It was contended that once the escaped income was below the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/- prescribed under section 149(1)(b), the extended period of limitation of ten years was not available to the Revenue and consequently the notice issued under section 148 on 19.03.2023 was barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. 13. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sanath Kumar Murali v. Income-tax Officer [(2023) 152 taxmann.com 231 (Kar.)]. The learned AR

10 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF submitted that in the said case, the reopening notice for Assessment Year 2016-17 had been issued on the basis of sale consideration received on transfer of immovable property amounting to Rs.55.77 lakh. The assessee demonstrated that after considering the indexed cost of acquisition, the taxable long- term capital gain was only Rs.33.85 lakh and, therefore, the escaped income was below Rs.50 lakh. The Hon'ble High Court held that for the purposes of section 149(1)(b), what is relevant is the "income chargeable to tax" and not the gross sale consideration received on transfer of the asset. The Hon'ble High Court observed that section 48 provides the mode of computation of income chargeable under the head "Capital Gains" and that the entirety of the sale consideration cannot be regarded as income chargeable to tax. It was accordingly held that where the income chargeable to tax was below Rs.50 lakh, the extended limitation period under section 149(1)(b) was not available and the notice issued under section 148 was liable to be set aside. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, the learned AR submitted that in the present case also the Assessing Officer himself has assessed the alleged escaped long-term capital gain at Rs.40,00,000/- and, therefore, the statutory condition prescribed under section 149(1)(b) was not fulfilled. Accordingly, it was submitted that the notice issued under section 148 dated 19.03.2023, the order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequential reassessment order deserve to be quashed as being barred by limitation.

11 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF 14. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative ("DR") strongly relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). The learned DR submitted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of specific information available with the Department regarding the financial transactions undertaken by the assessee during the relevant previous year, including sale of immovable property and credit card transactions. It was submitted that the case was reopened because the assessee had failed to explain the aforesaid transactions and had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. 15. The learned DR invited our attention to the assessment order and submitted that a notice under section 148A (b) was issued to the assessee seeking an explanation regarding the information available with the Department. However, the assessee failed to furnish any reply to the said notice. Consequently, after considering the material available on record, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) dated 19.03.2023 holding it to be a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Pursuant thereto, notice under section 148 was issued for Assessment Year 2016-17. In case of Assessment year 2015-16, the learned DR submitted that the notice under section 148A was issued before 31.03.2021 i.e. before the expiry of the limitation period. 16. The learned DR further submitted that even after issuance of notice under section 148, the assessee did not file any return

12 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF of income in response thereto. It was contended that the assessee also failed to comply with the subsequent statutory notices issued during the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned DR, the Assessing Officer had no option but to proceed on the basis of the information available on record and complete the reassessment proceedings in accordance with law. 17. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Since the challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings is different for the two assessment years, we proceed to adjudicate the same separately. Assessment Year 2015-16 18. The undisputed facts are that an order under section 148A(d) was passed on 01.04.2022 and thereafter notice under section 148 was issued on 01.04.2022 for Assessment Year 2015- 16. The principal contention of the assessee is that the notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). 19. At the outset, it would be relevant to note that while examining the interplay between the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151, the provisions of TOLA and the decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) specifically recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of the Revenue. In paragraph 19(e), the Revenue itself furnished a

13 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF tabulation indicating the assessment years to which TOLA would apply and those to which TOLA would not apply. In the said tabulation, the expiry of limitation under the erstwhile six-year period for Assessment Year 2015-16 was shown as 31.03.2022 and it was specifically recorded that TOLA was not applicable for that assessment year. 20. Immediately thereafter, in paragraph 19(f), the Revenue made an unequivocal concession before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for Assessment Year 2015-16 all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall within the period preserved by TOLA. Thereafter, while interpreting section 3(1) of TOLA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that TOLA overrides section 149 only to the limited extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of reassessment notices which fell for completion during the period from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021 and that the non obstante clause contained in section 3(1) of TOLA would neither extend the three-year limitation under the new regime nor extend the six-year limitation under the old regime. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that all notices issued beyond the surviving period of limitation are time-barred and liable to be set aside. 21. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts before us, we find that the assessment year involved is Assessment Year 2015- 16. The six-year period prescribed under the erstwhile section 149 expired on 31.03.2022. Admittedly, the jurisdictional notice under section 148 was issued only on 01.04.2022. The

14 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF contention of the Revenue that proceedings had already commenced under section 148A cannot advance its case because jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is assumed only upon issuance of notice under section 148 after completion of the procedure prescribed under section 148A. Therefore, for the purpose of limitation, the relevant date is the date of issuance of notice under section 148. 22. Once the notice under section 148 was admittedly issued on 01.04.2022, i.e., after expiry of the limitation period on 31.03.2022, the assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147 and 148 becomes unsustainable in law. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra). 23. Respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), we hold that the notice issued under section 148 dated 01.04.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the order passed under section 148A(d), the notice issued under section 148 and the consequential assessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Act are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. The grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. Assessment Year 2016-17

15 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF 24. For Assessment Year 2016-17, the notice under section 148 was issued on 19.03.2023. Therefore, unlike Assessment Year 2015-16, the notice was issued within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The controversy, however, is whether the conditions prescribed under section 149(1)(b) were satisfied so as to permit reopening beyond the normal period of three years. 25. The reasons recorded and the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer show that the reopening was based, inter alia, on sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer himself, while framing the reassessment, estimated 50% of the sale consideration towards acquisition cost, improvement cost and transfer expenses and treated only Rs.40,00,000/- as taxable long-term capital gain. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer himself, the income chargeable to tax alleged to have escaped assessment was Rs.40,00,000/-. 26. The precise issue arising before us came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sanath Kumar Murali vs. Income-tax Officer (2023) 152 taxmann.com 231 (Kar.). In that case also, the reopening notice for Assessment Year 2016-17 was issued on the basis of sale consideration received on transfer of immovable property. The Revenue sought to justify reopening by relying upon the gross sale consideration exceeding Rs.50,00,000/-. The Hon'ble High Court rejected the contention of the Revenue and held that for the

16 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF purposes of section 149(1)(b), what is relevant is the "income chargeable to tax" and not the gross sale consideration. The Hon'ble High Court specifically held that section 48 prescribes the mode of computation of income chargeable under the head "Capital Gains" and that the entirety of sale consideration does not constitute income. It was accordingly held that where the taxable capital gains are less than Rs.50,00,000/-, the extended limitation period under section 149(1)(b) is not available. 27. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court observed that the expression employed in section 149(1)(b) is "income chargeable to tax" and such expression must be understood in the context of the computation provisions contained in section 48. The Court further held that the Revenue cannot treat the entire sale consideration as income chargeable to tax merely because the proceedings are at the reopening stage. Ultimately, the order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequential notice issued under section 148 were set aside. 28. The relevant paras from the aforesaid judgement are reproduced for the sake of brevity: 28.1. Interpreting the section 149(1)(b) the Hon’ble High Court held that - "The words used in section 149(1)(b) is that the 'income chargeable to tax' which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year. The income chargeable under the head of 'capital gains' which would arise in case of sale transaction is as provided under section 48, which provides that income chargeable

17 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF under the head of 'capital gains' shall be computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration, the cost of acquisition..." (para 16) 28.2. Relating to requirement of considering escaped income and not gross sale consideration, the Hon’ble High Court held that - "Accordingly, in the instant case, the words found in section 149 which is 'income chargeable to tax' must be read in terms of 'income' as arising out of the 'capital gains' as provided under section 48 and this is the only manner of understanding the words, 'income chargeable to tax' under section 149(1)(b)." (para 18) 28.3. Rejection of Revenue's argument that gross sale consideration should be considered, it was held that - "The contention of the revenue that under section 149 what is required to be taken note of, is the 'income that has escaped assessment' being the entirety of sale consideration of Rs. 55.77 lakhs cannot be accepted..." (para 19) 29. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we find that even according to the Assessing Officer, the income chargeable to tax alleged to have escaped assessment was only Rs.40,00,000/-. Therefore, the statutory condition prescribed under section 149(1)(b), namely that the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.50,00,000/- or more, was admittedly not satisfied. The Revenue cannot rely upon the gross sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- because section 149(1)(b) speaks of "income chargeable to tax" and not "sale consideration". Once the alleged escaped income itself is below Rs.50,00,000/-, the extended period available under section 149(1)(b) ceases to be available.

18 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF 30. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sanath Kumar Murali (supra), we hold that the notice issued under section 148 dated 19.03.2023 for Assessment Year 2016-17 was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Consequently, the order passed under section 148A(d), the notice issued under section 148 and the consequential assessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Act are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. The grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2016- 17 are allowed. Adjudication of Penalty Appeals 31. We have already held while adjudicating the quantum appeals that the notices issued under section 148 for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were invalid and consequently the orders passed under section 148A(d), the notices issued under section 148 and the consequential reassessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Act are liable to be quashed. 32. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for both the assessment years admittedly emanate from and are founded entirely upon the additions made in the aforesaid reassessment orders. For Assessment Year 2015-16, penalty of Rs.8,84,728/- was levied with reference to additions aggregating to Rs.43,63,198/-, whereas for Assessment Year 2016-17, penalty of

19 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF Rs.8,86,171/- was levied with reference to additions aggregating to Rs.43,67,865/-. 33. Once the very foundation of the reassessment proceedings has been held to be invalid and the reassessment orders themselves have been quashed, the additions made therein cease to exist in the eyes of law. It is a settled proposition that when the assessment order forming the basis of penalty is annulled or set aside on jurisdictional grounds, the consequential penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The penalty being merely incidental and consequential to the assessment, the same necessarily falls with the assessment itself. 34. In the present case, we have not deleted the additions on merits. Rather, we have held that the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessments and consequently the reassessment orders themselves are non est in law. Therefore, the penalty orders passed under section 271(1)(c), which derive their existence solely from such reassessment orders, cannot be sustained. 35. Accordingly, the penalty orders passed under section 271(1)(c) dated 08.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16 and dated 09.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17, as affirmed by the learned CIT(A), are hereby quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 4190/Mum/2026 and 4191/Mum/2026 are allowed.

20 ITA No. 4189 to 4192/Mum/2026 Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha HUF 36. In the result, the quantum appeals of the assessee being ITA Nos. 4189/Mum/2026 and 4192/Mum/2026 are allowed and, consequently, the penalty appeals being ITA Nos. 4190/Mum/2026 and 4191/Mum/2026 are also allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 24/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai