LAXMI KASHINATH THANEKAR,MAHARASHTRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4780/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 January 2026AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal, citing the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji And Others, which emphasizes that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out and cause justice to be defeated. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not heard by the CIT(A) before the appellate order was passed, violating the principles of natural justice. Although the CIT(A) considered the material on record, substantive adjudication could not be done without providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for passing a fresh appellate order (de novo). The assessee was granted one final opportunity to represent their case, with a caution against seeking frivolous adjournments and an expectation of cooperation. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Laxmi Kashinath Thanekar, filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, against the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. This order upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The AO had determined the total income at Rs. 78,23,540/-, a significant increase from the assessee's declared income of Rs. 4,10,584/-. The assessee had initially filed a return, but a notice under Section 148 was issued based on information regarding the sale of immovable property. The assessee did not comply with notices issued by the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in not considering long-term capital gain on the sale of immovable property in the current Assessment Year (2011-12)? (Question of law and fact, concerning capital gains provisions). 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in not considering income from other sources on compensation received for land acquisition in Assessment Year 2011-12? (Question of law and fact, concerning income from other sources). 3. Whether the Assessing Officer wrongly ignored the valuation report from a Chartered Engineer Registered Valuer for the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 without valid reason and arbitrarily substituted the fair market value without referring to the DVO? (Question of law and fact, concerning valuation of property). 4. Whether the Assessing Officer wrongly applied the provisions of Section 50C of the Act for alleged sale of property in Assessment Year 2011-12? (Question of law, concerning Section 50C). 5. Whether the Assessing Officer passed the order without establishing the nexus between Shreenath Builders and Buildcube Constructions Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Mumbai High Court? (Question of law and fact, concerning nexus between entities). 6. Whether the Assessing Officer erroneously charged interest under Section 234B relating to Assessment Year 2011-12? (Question of law, concerning interest under Section 234B). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to serious medical issues, continuous treatment, and doctor-advised bed rest, making it impossible to attend to financial matters. Doctor's certificates were provided to substantiate the claim. The delay was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond control. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the merits of the grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 50C,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 10.12.2025Pronounced: 19.01.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

23.02.

2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless

Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act,

1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 24.12.2018 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12. 3. A.Y. 2011-12 The grounds of appeal are as under:

1.

The Ld Assessing Officer erred to consider long term capital gain on sale of immovable Property in Current Assessment year i.e. Assessment year

2011-12. 2. The Ld Assessing Officer erred to consider Income from other sources on compensation received in Assessment Year (2011-12) for land acquisition

against the part of land acquired by Govt. of Maharashtra.

3.

The Ld. Assessing Officer ignored the valuation report submitted from Chartered Engineer Registered Valuer for the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 without any valid reason and substituted the fair market

value arbitrarily without referring to DVO.

4.

The Ld. Assessing Officer wrongly applied the provisions of sec 50C of the Act for alleged sale of property in Asst Year 2011-12 and it is bad in law.

5.

The Ld. assessing officer passed the order without establishing the nexus between Shreenath Builders and Buildcube Constructions Put. Ltd. against order of the Mumbai High Court.

6.

The Ld. assessing officer erroneously charged interest u/s 234B relating to Asst. Year 2011-12

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed return declaring total income of Rs. 4,10,584/-. In this c

ase, based on certain information regarding sale of immovable

property, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and also a detailed show

cause

order

and final opportunity. Subsequently, the AO passed assessment

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining total income of Rs.

78,23,540/-.In the appeal, the assessee did not comply to various notices

issued to him from time time by the ld.CIT(A) who finally decided the appeal on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and by taking into consideration all materials available on record and upheld

the additions.

4.

At the outset, it is noticed that the instant appeal is delayed by 63 days. It may be stated here that during hearing before the none attended. In this regard, an application for condonation of the delay alongwith an affidavit filed by the assessee are on record according to which the delay occurred due to serious medical issues that he was suffering from during the relevant period. He was under continuous

treatment and was advised bed rest by the doctor, which made it impossible to attend to any official or financial matters. Copy of relevant doctor’s certificates to substantiate the genuineness of the reason for the delay was also enclosed. It is submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but purely due to circumstances beyond his control which may be condoned and admit the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.

5.

On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late........Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter

being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated....Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.... A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore,

condone the delay.

6.

Although we find that the Id.CIT(A) has taken into consideration the material facts on record before upholding the additions made by the AO, the fact remains that the assessee was not heard. Therefore, substantive adjudication of the issues could not be done by him without opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the grounds of appeal, we find that the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal challenging the impugned addition. In our view, the assessee should be accorded one more final opportunity in this regard to represent his case, following the principles of natural justice.

7.

In the light of above observations and in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the Id.CIT(A) for passing the appellate order de novo. In case of any failure on the part of the assessee, he would be at liberty to pass order after considering the materials on record. The assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings before the ld.CIT(A).

8.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/01/2026. SANDEEP GOSAIN PRABHASH SHANKAR (anf weer / JUDICIAL MEMBER) (AHI AERT/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Place: Has/Mumbai

feats /Date 19.01.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

aTeRT ot vrata omy ‘Copy of the Order forwarded to: tert / The Appellant

2 verelf The Respondent. 3 HIPL SaQaT / car 4 fgurita ufarre, saree acitcita atftepzt pr, rar,

Mumbai me wea / Guard file. Seanttet via ////

'/ BY ORDER,

SO /ASTTS THB (dy. /Asstt. Registrar) srry atte aif rat, Bench,

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 →