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

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.

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.”

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.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2022.