Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Key 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intention to withdraw the appeal, in light of the grounds raised and the absence of appearance, warrants dismissal as withdrawn.
Sections Cited
250, 23(1)(a), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
(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.
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.,”
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.
The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue had nothing to controvert the same.
We hereby direct that the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.