MEHOOL NARENDRA BHUVA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6767/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 February 2025AY 2008-09Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant 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 did not appear for the hearing and expressed an intention to withdraw the appeal via written submission. The Departmental Representative had nothing to controvert this. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. The assessee raised several grounds, including failure to consider written submissions and various additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer regarding notional interest, rental income, long-term capital loss, and unexplained cash.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal, in light of the grounds raised and the absence of appearance, warrants dismissal as withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 23(1)(a),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri. P. D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.02.2025Pronounced: 18.02.2025

(Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mehool Narendra Bhuva DCIT, Circle 20(1) 554, Jonette, Jame Jamshedji Road, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – Vs. Matunga, Mumbai – 400019. 400013. PAN/GIR No. AABPB1537C (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri. P. D. Chougule, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2008-09.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has failed to consider the written submissions filed by the appellant and erroneously held that the appellant has not filed any written submission against the grounds as enumerated in grounds of appeal. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer to the returned income on account of notional interest on (A.Y. 2008-09) Mehool Narendra Bhuva deposit received to actual rent received to arrive at the fair rent u/s 23(1)(a) of 1. T. Act. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 7,27,000/- made by Assessing Officer to the returned income on account of treating the rental income from letting of Garages and fixtures as 'Income from other sources' instead of 'Income from house property. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,02,738/- made by Assessing Officer to the returned income on account of Long Term Capital Loss incurred on sale of equity shares of M/s. Indu Oxo Chemicals Ltd. 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 8,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer to the returned income on account of unexplained cash u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of amount received on sale of shares of M/s Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Ltd.,”

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee intends to withdraw the present appeal and had made a written submission dated 17.02.2025 to that effect.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue had nothing to controvert the same.

5.

We hereby direct that the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 23(1)(a)

All 272 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →