MR AJAY SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17 (1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6972/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2014-155 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 Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the appeal was required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding non-genuine capital gains on share sales. The assessee later applied for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and paid the taxes for the relevant assessment year.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the genuineness of long-term capital gains on share sales and the validity of additions made by the AO. The appeal was withdrawn due to settlement under a tax scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 10(38),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Hearing: 24.03.2022Pronounced: 31.05.2022
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 55, Mumbai dated 30/8/2019 for assessment year 20 14-15 raising following grounds of appeal “The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another:-

1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 55, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer - 17(1)(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making an addition of a sum of The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in considering the capital gains on sale of long-term capital assets being, shares of Mishka Finance & Trading Limited to be non-genuine inasmuch as the said shares have been purchased during an earlier year are investments; the same being sold shall necessarily give rise to capital gains and the impugned shares being long-term capital asset, the capital gains Rs 10,00,358 are long-term capital gains in respect of which the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed exemption of section 10(38) of the Act; accordingly, the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act is not justified.

The appellant further, contends that the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition inasmuch as the assessment order has been framed in violation and utter disregard to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, amongst others, the Assessing Officer has not given the documents/ statements on oath to the appellant for rebuttal, which are in his possession and on which he has relied. upon and has not given an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the The appellant further, contends that the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition inasmuch as the Assessing Officer has not proved that the cash emanated from the coffers of the appellant.

2.

The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs 30,236 under section 69C of the Act, being commission at 3% for obtaining the alleged accommodation entries for capital gains Rs 10,07,858 on sale of long-term capital asset being shares of Mishka Finance & Trading Limited.

The appellant contends that on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition inasmuch as there is no accommodation entry availed by the appellant and the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any evidence on record to make the impugned addition; hence, the impugned addition ought to be deleted.

The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal.”

3.

The learned departmental representative did not object to the same.

In view of the application of the assessee dated 21st March 4. 2022 stating that the dispute involved in the above appeal has been settled Under the VSV scheme and therefore the appeal is required to be withdrawn. Request of the assessee has been acceded to.

5.

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is treated as withdrawn and hence dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →