MAHAZARIN FEROZE DASTOOR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3494/MUM/2024
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15)
Mahazarin Feroze Dastoor
2-I Flr, Sion Mansion,
Sion, Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400022
v/s.
बिधम
ITO, Mumbai
Kautilya Bhavan, BKC,
Bandra East,
Mumbai-400051
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACPD0120C
Appellant/अपीलधर्थी
..
Respondent/प्रनिवधदी
निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by:
None
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by:
Shri. R. R. Makwana
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing
10.03.2025
घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement
28.03.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 10.05.2024 passed u/s.
250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2014-15
Mahazarin Feroze Dastoor
“1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A. O. erred in reopening the assessment u/s 148 and the learned CIT(A), NFAC also erred in confirming the reopening u/s. 148
a only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without making any inquiry of the said information received b. relying upon information from website c. without any clear nexus between reasons recorded and information received d. reopening for AY 2014-15 was time barred under new provision and old provisions both as per several judgements of Bombay and other high courts e. approval was mechanically granted
2) In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of the long-term capital gain of Rs. 3,29,15,679 instead of Rs. 203,73,141/even though the same was not taxable as per the scheme of Wipro.
3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in levying and the learned CIT(A), NFAC also erred in confirming interest u/s 234 & initiation of penalty u/s 271[1][c] and 271[1][b]”
At the outset, it was submitted that the assessee has filed an application in Form No. 1 under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS, 2024). As the assessee has opted to settle the dispute under VSVS, 2024, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the assessee is at liberty to request for the revival of the appeal in case his application under VSVS, 2024 does not become final. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.03.2025. RAHUL CHAUDHARY RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 28.03.2025 अननकेत स ुंह र जपूत/ स्टेनो
P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2014-15
Mahazarin Feroze Dastoor
आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यानित प्रनत ////
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt.