REGINOLD JOHN BANGERA,MUMBAI V. ITO -WARD-42(30(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6404/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Reginold John Bangera, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed the reassessment and addition of income as short-term capital gains from the sale of immovable properties. The properties were agricultural lands, and the total income was assessed at Rs. 97,25,000. The appellant contested the jurisdiction and legality of the reassessment proceedings and the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found merit in providing the appellant another opportunity to present his case and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789899 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAN KOSURI
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKLE HARIYA
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6404/MUM/2024 7 (A.Y.2015-16) Reginold John Bangera No. 73 Villa Springs, Kavkur village, Secunderabad, Karnataka, 500078. Vs. ITO-Ward-42(3)(2) Room no. 754B, 7th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400051. \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AACPB6697A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 10.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: “1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 11 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA NO. 6404/mum/2024. provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law. 1.2 Otherwise also, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. EX-PARTE ORDER 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex-parte. 2.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non attendance / non-reply was for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant/beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. THE INITIATION AND COMPLETION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in initiating the reassessment proceeding and framing the assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. 3.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that: (i) The case of the Appellant did not fall within the parameters laid down by section 147 r.w.s. 148 r. w.s. 149 & 151 of the Act; and (ii) The necessary preconditions for initiating the reassessment proceeding and completion thereof were not satisfied. 3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the reassessment so framed is bad in law, illegal, void and without jurisdiction. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. ADDITION OF INCOME FROM SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY [RS.97,25,000/-] 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making addition of Rs. 97,25,000/- of the Act as alleged short term capital gains on sale of immovable properties being agricultural lands. 4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in - (i) Confirming the action of the A.O. in not computing the capital gains after giving benefit of the cost of acquisition of the impugned immovable property purchased by the Appellant as well as other benefits available in terms of section 48 of the Act of the impugned immovable properties purchased by the Appellant, (ii) Basing his action only on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 6404/mum/2024. (iii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations, and (iv) Ignoring relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant. 4.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition was called for. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, assuming but not admitting that some addition was called for, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the computation of the addition made by the A.O. was not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary, and excessive. LIBERTY 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, or modify all or any the above ground at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. Based on information available on the portal, it came to notice of the ld. AO that the assessee had sold immovable properties for consideration of Rs. 97,25,000/- and Rs. 70,58,333/- respectively. As no capital gains had been offered for taxation, his case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 15.04.2022. As no compliance was made to the notices issued by ld. AO, assessment was completed ex-parte vide order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B dated 19.02.2024 determining total income at Rs. 97,25,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Since no reply/documentary evidences were furnished by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.10.2024. Further aggrieved, the assessee has not filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the assessee personally appeared and has requested for providing one more opportunity to submit the requisite documentary Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA NO. 6404/mum/2024. evidences before the lower authorities. Ld. DR has also not objected to the said proportion. 5. After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we hereby remand the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh computation of the capital gains after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant and make requisite compliance before the ld. JAO. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 24.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (RENU JAUHRI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: Mumbai Date 24.11.2025 Anandi.Nambi/STENO आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\b / The Appellant 2. थ\b / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0011 / CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड\u001b फाईल / Guard file. स ािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "