ADITI DILIP SHETE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 12/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024 and sought adjournment. The Ld. DR had no objection. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the scheme application is not accepted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer to the returned income. The assessment order, dated 24.12.2018, for AY 2011-12, involved additions under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H (SMC

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 06.05.2025Pronounced: 08.05.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070148199(1), dated 16.01.2024 passed against the assessment order by Income tax Officer-21(1)(1), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 24.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

“The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) Rs. 26,25,171/-/- instead of Rs. 6,98,307/- as returned by the appellant 'a' without considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in law. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 18,35,109/- u/s.68 for unexplained cash credits (penny stock) relating to sale of shares of M/s. Vas Infrastructure Limited without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 91,755/- u/s.69C as unexplained expenditure relating to 5% of sale of shares Rs. 18,35,109/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that assessment was completed by making addition of Rs.19,26,864/- to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 02.02.2019, who confirmed the same. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the outset, we note that assessee placed on record a written submission dated 06.05.2025, wherein she opted to resolve the dispute in this appeal under ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024’ (VSV, 2024 scheme) and sought adjournment.

5.

Ld. DR also does not have any objection if the assessee is availing the VSVS scheme and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Considering the facts on record after, after rejecting the request for adjournment, we find it appropriate to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, pursuant to the option availed by assessee for resolving Aditi Dilip Shete., AY 2011-12 the dispute in the appeal under VSV, 2024. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed with a liberty to restore / revive the appeal, in case the application for ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024’ do not materialize or is not accepted by the department.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →