ANWAR HUSSAIN KARAM HUSSAIN KHAN,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), THANE, THANE

ITA 3191/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anwar Hussain Karam Hussain Khan, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 22 January 2026, which upheld an addition of Rs.16,91,200/-. This addition stemmed from an assessment order dated 20 March 2024, passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings based on information from the Insight Portal indicating the purchase of immovable property with a stamp duty value of Rs.1,04,56,000/-. The assessee had not initially filed a return. A notice under section 148 was issued on 22 March 2023. The assessee claimed the property was agreed to be purchased jointly in 2004 for Rs.20,00,000/-, with registration occurring later. The AO accepted the source of the assessee's 20% share of the consideration but added 20% of the difference between the stamp duty value and the stated consideration under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, deciding on the material on record.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order, while stating it was decided on merits, substantially relied on the absence of further submissions and the AO's conclusion. It did not independently determine the material questions regarding the agreement date, registration date, payment evidence, and the application of section 56(2)(vii)(b). The assessee also raised a jurisdictional objection which was not addressed. The Tribunal found that a fresh decision by the CIT(A) was warranted to ensure the appellate order stated the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision, as required by section 250(6). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh, reasoned decision. The CIT(A) was directed to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, consider all grounds and material, including the jurisdictional objection, and decide the appeal afresh. The assessee was directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- for the restoration. The Tribunal expressed no view on the validity of the reassessment or the merits of the addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 are valid, considering the assessee's contention that the income escaped assessment was less than Rs.50 Lakhs and the reopening was time-barred after 3 years, thus violating mandatory conditions prescribed under the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the addition of Rs.16,91,200/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(vii)(b) is legally sustainable, given the assessee's arguments that the actual consideration was paid in 2004, the preconditions for invoking the section were not met, and the property was received in 2004, not the relevant assessment year? 3. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and confirming the assessment without adjudicating the grounds on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contentions: - The reassessment is bad in law and void ab initio as mandatory conditions were not satisfied, and the reopening after 3 years is time-barred. - Section 56(2)(vii) was incorrectly invoked as the property was received in 2004, prior to the introduction of the provision, and no receipt occurred in the relevant assessment year. - The addition was made without proper verification, and the actual consideration was paid in 2004. - The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a reasoned determination of the issues and violated principles of natural justice. - The matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue's learned Departmental Representative raised no objection to the restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 148,Section 56(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Ld. Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 23.09.2026

PER: MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22 January 2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. The appeal before the CIT(A) arose from the assessment order dated 20 March 2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2 Anwar Hussain Karam Hussain Khan

1.

On facts and i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →