MANDAR HARESHWAR THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2758/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2026AY 2011-129 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land for Rs. 1,75,00,000/- but the stamp duty value was Rs. 3,35,76,000/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition for capital gains considering the cost of acquisition as Nil due to non-compliance and lack of evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated after four years and if the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 50C,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM &

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar Jha, Sr. DR, Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur
For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Jha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.05.2026Pronounced: 18.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM ITA No.2830/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & ITA No.2780/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur, Commissioner of Income Tax 366, Thakur House, (Appeals), Moreshwar Patil Road, Ward 42(1)(4), Eksar Talepakhadi, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Eksar Village, Mumbai Borivali (West), Mumbai-400092 Maharashtra PAN: AHRPT0846M (Appellant) : (Respondent)

ITA No.2803/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Ms. Sapana Anjesh Chalke, Commissioner of Income Tax 1306, Bajrangdas Bapa SRS, (Appeals), Ashok Van Bajranjdas Bapa Mandir, Vs. Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai-400068 Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051 PAN: ALVPT2920L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

ITA No.2808/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Mr. Sandesh Ruksen Thakur Commissioner of Income Tax 366, Thakur House,Moreshwar Patil (Appeals), Road, Eksar Talepakhadi, Vs. Ward 42(1)(5), Eksar Village,Borivali (West), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400092 Mumbai PAN: AIFPT1628L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

ITA No.2830/Mum/2025 & Ors. Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur ITA No.2727/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & ITA No.2831/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Mr. Suresh Damodar Thakur, Commissioner of Income Tax 366, Thakur House, Moreshwar Patil (Appeals), Road, Eksar Talepakhadi, Ward 42(1)(5), Vs. Eksar Village, Kautilya Bhavan, Borivali West, Mumbai Mumbai-400092 PAN: ALZPT6957D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

ITA No.2746/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & ITA No.2815/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Ms. Kalpana Hareshwar Commissioner of Income Tax Thakur, (Appeals), 366, Thakur House, Ward 42(1)(5), Moreshwar Patil Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Eksar Talepakhadi, Eksar Village, Mumbai Borivali West, Mumbai-400092 PAN: ALYPT1999G (Appellant) : (Respondent)

ITA No.2828/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & ITA No.2758/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Mr. Mandar Hareshwar Thakur, Commissioner of Income Tax 366, Thakur House, (Appeals), Moreshwar Patil Road, Ward 42(1)(5), Vs. Eksar Talepakhadi, Kautilya Bhavan, Eksar Village, Borivali West, Mumbai Mumbai-400092

ITA No.2830/Mum/2025 & Ors. Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur PAN: ALZPT7015J (Appellant) : (Respondent)

ITA No.2757/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Mr. Chandrakant Thakur, Commissioner of Income Tax 366, Thakur House, (Appeals), Moreshwar Patil Road, Ward 42(1)(5), Vs. Eksar Talepakhadi, Kautilya Bhavan, Eksar Village, Borivali West, Mumbai Mumbai-400092 PAN: AIRPT7521L

ITA No.2749/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & ITA No.2829/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Ms. Manisha Chandrakant Commissioner of Income Tax Thakur, (Appeals), 366, Thakur House, Ward 42(1)(5), Moreshwar Patil Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Eksar Talepakhadi, Mumbai Eksar Village, Borivali West, Mumbai-400092 PAN: AIRPT7520M

ITA No.2720/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Ms. Ramesh Damodar Thakur, Commissioner of Income Tax 366, Thakur House, (Appeals), Moreshwar Patil Road, Ward 42(1)(5), Vs. Eksar Talepakhadi, Kautilya Bhavan, Eksar Village, Borivali West, Mumbai Mumbai-400092 PAN: ABCPT1910B

: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.R. Assessee by Respondent by : Shri Sumit Kumar Jha, Sr. DR

ITA No.2830/Mum/2025 & Ors. Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur

Date of Hearing : 06.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2026

O R D E R Per Bench:

These captioned appeals are filed by different assessees challenging the order of the

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National

Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12. The details of all

the assessees along with the appeal numbers are tabulated herein under for ease of

reference:

Name AY ITA No. Ruksen Damodar Thakur 2011-12 2780/Mum/2026 Ruksen Damodar Thakur (Penalty) 2011-12 2830/Mum/2026 Sandesh Ruksen Thakur 2011-12 2808/Mum/2026 Kalpana Hareshwar Thakur 2011-12 2746/Mum/2026 Kalpana Hareshwar Thakur (Penalty) 2011-12 2815/Mum/2026 Mandar Hareshwar Thakur 2011-12 2758/Mum/2026 Mandar Hareshwar Thakur (Penalty) 2011-12 2828 /Mum/ 2026 Ramesh Damodar Thakur 2011-12 2720/Mum/2026 Suresh Damodar Thakur 2011-12 2727/Mum/2026 Suresh Damodar Thakur (Penalty) 2011-12 283 1/ Mum/ 2026 Manisha Chandrakant Thakur 2011-12 2749/Mum/2026 Manisha Chandrakant Thakur (Penalty) 2011-12 2829/Mum/2026 Chandrakant Thakur 2011-12 2757/Mum/2026 Sapana Anjesh Chalke 2011-12 2803/Mum/2026

2.

As the facts are identical in all these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order

by taking ITA No.2780/M/2026 as a lead case for the sake of convenience.

3.

The assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds

of appeal:

ITA No.2830/Mum/2025 & Ors. Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. On the facts and circumstances of the case the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

2.

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 20,98,500/- by adopting the stamp duty value of agricultural land at Rs. 3,35,76,000/- as against the actual sale consideration, by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The said addition is unjustified, is factually incorrect, unsustainable in law and liable to be deleted.

3.

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts in considering the cost of acquisition of the agricultural land as Nil. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the fair market value as on 01-04-1981 at Rs. 1,72,912/-, resulting in an indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 12,29,404/-while computing the long-term capital gains. The computation accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be rectified.

4.

The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte, despite the fact that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date of hearing due to a genuine family health emergency coupled with acute financial constraints. The non- appearance was neither wilful nor deliberate. In view of the provisions of Section 250(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and principles of natural justice, the appellant is entitled to restoration of the appeal for adjudication afresh on merits.

5.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance of the appellant, without adjudicating the issues on merits, thereby contravening the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which require a reasoned order dealing with each ground of appeal

6.

The appellant has reserved the right to add, alter, amend or delete the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing.

B. TAX EFFECT RELATING TO EACH GROUND OF APPEAL:

Since the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is an ex parte dismissal without adjudication on merits, the entire tax effect involved in the appeal remains unresolved. Accordingly, the tax effect of the present appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT shall be the same as the tax effect amounting to Rs. 8,13,410/- arising from the assessment order dated 28.11.2018 passed u/s 144, subject to final determination upon restoration and fresh adjudication.”

ITA No.2830/Mum/2025 & Ors. Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur 4. It is observed that all these appeals are filed belatedly with a delay of various days

beyond the period of limitation, for which the assessees have filed applications along with

an affidavit for condoning the said delay. Upon perusal of the affidavits and on hearing

the rival contention, we deem it fit to condone the said delay on the ground that there being

“sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the present appeal and as we are conscious of the

fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Courts have taken a liberal view in

condoning such delays wherein it has been reiterated that substantial justice should prevail

over procedural defects. We hereby condone the delay in all these appeals.

5.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was reopened based on the

information that the assessee has entered into transaction of transfer of capital assets which

value as per the stamp duty authority was more than the agreement value and that the

assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, basis which

notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on the

reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147

of the Act. Pertinently, the assessee despite various notices failed to comply with the

proceeding before the Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) and the Ld. AO vide

order dated 28.11.2018 passed the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act being

best judgment assessment determining the total income at Rs.20,98,500/- after making an

addition u/s 50C of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG” for short). The Ld.

AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

ITA No.2830/Mum/2025 & Ors. Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur 6. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide

order dated 08.11.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide an ex-parte order

on the ground that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the appellate

proceeding.

7.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the ex-

parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the abovementioned grounds.

8.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

It is observed that the assessee along with 16 other co-owners had entered into transaction

of sale of open plot of land at Borivali for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/- vide an

agreement dated 15.07.2010 and had adopted the market value of the property as per the

stamp duty valuation at Rs.3,35,76,000/-. The Ld. AO made an addition u/s 50C of the

Act towards the capital gain where the cost of acquisition was taken at Nil for the reason

that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim before the Ld. AO by cogent

documentary evidences. Even before the first appellate authority the assessee has been

non-compliant and has failed to furnish evidences in support of his claim and basis which

both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition towards LTCG on the

ground that no documentary evidences were filed in support of the assessee’s contention.

Before us, there was an affidavit filed by the assessee undertaking that he will comply with

the proceeding before the Ld. AO by furnishing all the documentary evidences in support

of the assessee’s contention and prayed for one more opportunity to present his case before

the Ld. AO.

ITA No.2830/Mum/2025 & Ors. Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur

9.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR” for short) for the Revenue

vehemently opposed to setting aside these files to the Ld. AO for the reason that sufficient

opportunity was given to all these assessees before the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A)

which were not complied with.

10.

Upon perusal of the rival contentions, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one

more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO with a direction that the assessee

shall strictly comply with the proceeding before the Ld. AO and the Ld. AO is also directed

to adjudicate the issue afresh on the basis of the submission of the assessee and the

documentary evidences proposed to be filed before the Ld. AO and then pass a denovo

assessment order on the merits and in accordance with law. Hence, by adhering to the

principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation, we remand all these

issues back to the file of the Ld. AO for adjudicating afresh. Accordingly, the grounds of

appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

11.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

purpose.

12.

The findings given in ITA No.2780/M/2025 will apply mutatis mutandis to the

following appeals as well and hence the same are also hereby allowed for statistical

purpose:

ITA No. 2780/Mum/2026 2830/Mum/2026

ITA No.2830/Mum/2025 & Ors. Mr. Ruksen Damodar Thakur 2808/Mum/2026 2746/Mum/2026 2815/Mum/2026 2758/Mum/2026 2828 /Mum/ 2026 2720/Mum/2026 2727/Mum/2026 283 1/ Mum/ 2026 2749/Mum/2026 2829/Mum/2026 2757/Mum/2026 2803/Mum/2026

13.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated: 18.05.2026

* Kishore, Sr. P.S.

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 →