SONAL PURUSHOTTAM AGARWAL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2176/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 August 2025AY 2019-2020Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI ( (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted the submission of the assessee's counsel to withdraw the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT Mumbai, which arose from an order by NFAC, Delhi. The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that they wished to withdraw the appeal as a previous appeal before the Delhi ITAT had been set aside to the file of the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be allowed to withdraw the appeal, given the prior proceedings and the setting aside of a related appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28,Section 44AD,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta
For Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, SR. D.R
Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 22.08.2025

Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 26/12/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2019-20 on following grounds of appeal :

“1. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned CIT(E) erred in making addition of Rs. 12,78,800/ - u/s 28 without considering the actual expenses incurred by the assessee.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of presumptive taxation A.Y. 2019-20 Sonal Purushttam Agarwal under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the appellant's business falls within the ambit of the said section, and all income has been duly declared under the presumptive taxation scheme. That the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) erred in making and upholding an arbitrary addition of Rs. 12,78,800 to the total income of the appellant.

3. That the appellant craves to add, alter, delete and modify any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, assessee wish to withdraw the present appeal. The Ld.AR has filed following submission in support of the withdrawal.

3.

Considering the above submission the present appeal filed by assessee stands withdrawn. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 28

All 1,686 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →