MAHESH VIJAY PAWAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-34(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2815/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY ( (Judicial Member)1 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 that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and filed a declaration. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order passed by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2014-15, challenging additions made under Section 50C and other grounds related to valuation reports. The assessee had opted for resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal has become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/07/2025

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds:

1. Ground No 1: Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law.

On the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the order On the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the order On the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the order passed by the Income Tax Offic passed by the Income Tax Officer 34(2)(3) (hereinafter referred to er 34(2)(3) (hereinafter referred to as the learned AO) is bad in law in so far as the addition of as the learned AO) is bad in law in so far as the addition of as the learned AO) is bad in law in so far as the addition of Rs.33,47,287 made under section 50C of the Act is concerned. Rs.33,47,287 made under section 50C of the Act is concerned. Rs.33,47,287 made under section 50C of the Act is concerned.

2. Ground No 2: Non 2. Ground No 2: Non-acceptance of request for the revised acceptance of request for the revised valuation report by the DVO. valuation report by the DVO. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, ADDL/JCIT(A) of the case and law, ADDL/JCIT(A) - 4 KOLKATA ("the learned 4 KOLKATA ("the learned CIT(A)") erred in rejecting the appellant's request to seek revised CIT(A)") erred in rejecting the appellant's request to seek revised CIT(A)") erred in rejecting the appellant's request to seek revised valuation report since the original report contained several valuation report since the original report contained several valuation report since the original report contained several mistakes committed by the Department Valuation Officer in the committed by the Department Valuation Officer in the committed by the Department Valuation Officer in the valuation report dated 24th August 2017. valuation report dated 24th August 2017.

3. Ground No 3: Addition of Rs. 23, 10,404/ 3. Ground No 3: Addition of Rs. 23, 10,404/- is bad in law. is bad in law. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the learned CIT of the case and law, the learned CIT(A), erred in not adjudicating (A), erred in not adjudicating on the various errors committed in the valuation report dated 24th on the various errors committed in the valuation report dated 24th on the various errors committed in the valuation report dated 24th August 2017 and not deleting the addition of Rs. 23,10,404/ August 2017 and not deleting the addition of Rs. 23,10,404/ August 2017 and not deleting the addition of Rs. 23,10,404/- made made made by by by the the the Assessing Assessing Assessing Officer Officer Officer to to to the the the total total total income of the the assessee.

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted for resolution of the dispute under the that the assessee has opted for resolution of the dispute under the that the assessee has opted for resolution of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and that the necessary declaration , and that the necessary declaration in this regard has already been filed and accepted by the competent in this regard has already been filed and accepted by the co in this regard has already been filed and accepted by the co authority. It was, thus, submitted that in light of the said authority. It was, thus, submitted that in light of the said authority. It was, thus, submitted that in light of the said development, development, development, the the the present present present appeal appeal appeal no no no longer longer longer survives survives survives for for for adjudication. In view of the above submission and upon perusal of adjudication. In view of the above submission and upon perusal of adjudication. In view of the above submission and upon perusal of the record, we find that the appeal stands rendered infructuous. the record, we find that the appeal stands rendered infructuous. the record, we find that the appeal stands rendered infructuous. ccordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as ccordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 24 24/07/2025.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →