PUSHPA HARSHADRAI PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-32(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3121/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 April 2025AY 2018-19Bench: 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 assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024' and had filed Form No. 1. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2018-19, concerning an addition of Rs. 36,49,473 representing the difference between sales consideration and stamp value of a property. The grounds also included wrongful charging of interest and penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be treated as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and whether additions, interest, and penalties were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah
For Respondent: Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09/04/2025Pronounced: 16/04/2025

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in adding 36,49,473 being the difference between the sales consideration and stamp value of the said property sold during the year without referring the same to DVO and without granting video conferencing for personal hearing.

2. The Assessing Officer wrongly charged interest u/s. 234 and initiated penalty u/s. 270A.

3. In the facts and the circumstances of law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming all the mentioned grounds without granting video conferencing B. Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays as follows, 1. To delete the addition of Rs 3649473/- 2. To delete the interest charged u/s 234 and initiation of penalty u/s 270A.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has opted to settle the issue in dispute involved in the present appeal under the ‘Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024’ and has already filed Form No.

1.

In view of the above fact, the appeal of the assessee is treated as withdrawn with liberty to file an application for recalling the appeal, in case the application of the assessee for settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas is finally not accepted. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

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

More judgments on Section 234

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →