MAHAZARIN FEROZE DASTOOR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3494/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 March 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee has filed an application under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS, 2024). As the assessee opted to settle the dispute under VSVS, 2024, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The assessee had raised grounds challenging the reopening of assessment, the addition of long-term capital gain, and the levy of interest and penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the additions and levies were justified, considering the assessee opted for settlement under VSVS, 2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250,Section 234

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana
Hearing: 10.03.2025Pronounced: 28.03.2025

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:

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]”

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →