MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

When the appeals were called for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment petition filed. Upon reviewing the record, it is noted that the Ld. AR had appeared at the previous hearing and had accepted the date fixed for the present hearing. However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee today. Considering the merits and quantum involved in the case, we have decided to proceed with the hearing ex parte with respect to the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR.

The assessment for A.Y. 2015–16 was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. Additions were made on account of bogus long-term capital gains amounting to Rs.31,04,85,020/- and income from house property amounting to Rs.5,62,807/-. These additions were challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the assessee's appeal. The matter was then brought before the Tribunal. On examining the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in for A.Y. 2015–16, dated 17/11/2023, we observe that both issues—long-term capital gain and house property income— were adjudicated on merits.With respect to the exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG), the Co-ordinate Bench

We note that the Ld. AO had initiated penalty proceedings and levied a penalty on the alleged concealment amounting to Rs.7,05,47,203/-. The assessee contended that since the quantum appeal was pending before the ITAT, the penalty should be kept in abeyance until its disposal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal and upheld the penalty order. Since the quantum appeal has now been adjudicated and the matter has been remanded to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration, we also remit the penalty matter back to the Ld. AO for re-computation of the penalty in light of the merits of the case. Accordingly, is allowed for statistical purposes.