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

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM 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 passed by th as the learne
Rs.33,47,287
2. Ground N valuation rep
Without preju of the case a CIT(A)") erred valuation rep mistakes com valuation repo
3. Ground No Without preju of the case a on the various
August 2017
made by income of th
2. At the outset, t that the assessee ha
Vivad se Vishwas Sch in this regard has alr authority. It was, development, the adjudication. In view the record, we find
Accordingly, the ap infructuous.

ITA and in circumstances of the case and la he Income Tax Officer 34(2)(3) (hereinafte ed AO) is bad in law in so far as the 7 made under section 50C of the Act is con
No 2: Non-acceptance of request for eport by the DVO.
udice to the above, on the facts and in ci and law, ADDL/JCIT(A) - 4 KOLKATA ( d in rejecting the appellant's request to s port since the original report contai mmitted by the Department Valuation O ort dated 24th August 2017. No 3: Addition of Rs. 23, 10,404/- is ba udice to the above, on the facts and in ci nd law, the learned CIT(A), erred in not s errors committed in the valuation repor
7 and not deleting the addition of Rs.
the Assessing
Officer to he assessee.
he learned counsel for the asse s opted for resolution of the dis heme, 2024, and that the neces ready been filed and accepted by thus, submitted that in ligh present appeal no longer w of the above submission and u that the appeal stands render ppeal filed by the assessee is Mahesh Vijay Pawar
2
A No. 2815/MUM/2024
aw, the order er referred to e addition of ncerned.
the revised ircumstances
("the learned seek revised ned several
Officer in the ad in law.
ircumstances adjudicating rt dated 24th
23,10,404/- the total essee submitted spute under the sary declaration y the competent ht of the said survives for upon perusal of red infructuous.
s dismissed as 3. In the result, th
Order pronou (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 24/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA he appeal of the assessee is dism unced in the open Court on 24
/-
S
AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Mahesh Vijay Pawar
3
A No. 2815/MUM/2024
missed.
4/07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai