MONA FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 10(2)(4), MUMBAI

1. In the fac Learned Com CIT(A)"] erred Assessing Of additions to t order u/s 14 Act"] in gross 1.2. In the fac order passed same is, (1) and; (ii) is pa justice based relevant, mat the Appellant. 2. ON REASS 2.1 In the fac impugned re-a for want of Ju initiation and Act are not fu 2.2 While affi CIT(A) failed t i. The initiatio mind and in which is also ii. The entire the same ar precedents a without first Appellant; an iii. In any cas present case are simply ma iv. The re-ope and without a ITA cts and circumstances of the case and in mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ d in confirming the action of the fficer ["the Ld. AO"] who in turn mad the returned income and passed the Ass 44 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 19 violation of principles of natural justice. cts and circumstances of the case and in d in Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed s Sans any independent reasoning wha assed in gross violation of principles of on extraneous considerations while igno terial, considerations and submissions m . SESSMENT: cts and circumstances of the case and in assessment proceedings are bad in law uri iction since the necessary pre- cond completion of re-assessment u/s 147/14 ulfilled in the present case. irming the impugned re-assessment order to appreciate that: on of re-assessment is without any appli fact the reasons are based on incorre acknowledged by the Ld. AO himself; re-assessment proceedings are bad in la re conducted in violation of the extant and the re-assessment order is directly disposing off the objections raised d; se, there is no income escaping assessme and even in the assessment order the a ade on assumptions and presumptions; a ening is simply based on borrowed sat any independent application of mind. Mona Finvest Pvt. Ltd 2 A No. 3312/MUM/2024 n law the ["the Ld. Learned de huge sessment 961 ["the n law the since the atsoever; f natural oring the made by law, the and void itions for 48 of the r, the Ld. ication of ect facts aw since t judicial y passed by the ent in the additions and; tisfaction

3 In the fac impugned re-a 3. ON MERIT 3.1. In the fac Ld. CIT(A) err making an ad allegation of f 3.2. While doi i No such cap and in fact transaction; ii. The additio CIT(A) is ba conjectures, consideration and considera iii. Section 68 by the Ld. AO iv. In any cas extant law an Assessee as opportunity to relied on; 3.3. In the fac addition mad deserves to be 2. At the very outs that the assessee ha under the ‘Vivad Se V determining the tax placed on record. In the present appeal st ITA cts and circumstances of the case and in assessment deserves to be quashed. TS: cts and circumstances of the case, and in red in erred confirming the action of the L ddition of Rs.6,84,810/- u/s 68 of the A fictitious long term capital gain. ing so the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate t pital gain is earned / claimed by the A the Appellant has incurred a loss on made by the Ld. AO as confirmed by ased on assumptions, presumptions, s based on irrelevant and ex ns while ignoring the relevant material, e ations; 8 is not at all applicable to the additions O; and; se, the addition is unsustainable being co nd without providing the necessary mater relied on by the AO and without gra o cross examine the parties whose statem cts and circumstances of the case and in de by the Ld. AO as affirmed by the Ld e deleted in toto. set, learned counsel for the asse as opted for the settlement of Vishwas Scheme, 2024.’ A copy liability under the said scheme light of the assessee’s request tands dismissed as having becom Mona Finvest Pvt. Ltd 3 A No. 3312/MUM/2024 law, the n law the Ld. AO in ct on the that: Appellant in the y the Ld. surmises, xtraneous evidences so made ntrary to rial to the nting an ments are n law the d. CIT(A) essee submitted the tax dispute y of Form No. 2, e, has also been for withdrawal, me infructuous.

In the result, th Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 11/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.