SATISH SAWALCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 137/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 October 2021AY 2012-132 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's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the appeal due to a dispute resolution under the VSV scheme. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment year 2012-13. The grounds of appeal challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings and the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains.

What were the issues?

The primary issues involved the validity of reassessment proceedings and the taxability of long-term capital gains. The assessee also contested additions made under Sections 68 and 69C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Hearing: 11.10.2021Pronounced: 11.10.2021

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT-A dated 18.6.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal read as under :-

1.

That on the facts of the case and in law notice issued u/s 148 dt. 15/09/2016 to initiate the reassessment proceeding and consequent assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act on 30/12/2017 is without jurisdiction and bad in law.

2.

That on facts of the case and in law both the Id. A.O. and also Id. C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in denying the exemption claim made u/s 10(38) and in making and upholding the addition u/s 68 at Rs. 6,70,000/- treating the gross sale proceeds of listed long-term equity shares subjected to collection of STT, sold on recognized stock exchange at the prevailing quoted rate after holding for more than one year as unexplained cash credit disregarding the supporting documentary evidences furnished merely on the basis or untested report or D.I. Kolkata but without bringing any adverse evidence or material on assessment record. 3. That the alleged denial of exemption claim made u/s 10(38) and alleged addition made u/s 68 at Rs. 6,70,000/- is wrong on facts and bad in law since the copy of information and documents received from Investigation

2 Satish Sawalchand Jain Directorate, Kolkata have been relied upon by the Id. A.O. without verification and adjudication thereof and assessee appellant, has not been provided with such material thus denying the opportunity of cross examination and or rebuttal of the same in gross violation of principal of natural justice.

4. That the Id. A.O. & Id. C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in making and upholding the disallowance u/s 69C at Rs. 13,400/- by estimating the 2% commission payment to alleged entry providers on net sale proceeds of LTCG shares of Rs. 6,70,000/- only on assumption basis without backing of any shred of evidence of such payment by the appellant.

5.

That the appeal ground No. l raised is independent grounds and without prejudice to appeal ground no. 2 to appeal ground no.4.

3.

At the outset in this case it is noted that the assessee’s counsel has submitted an application that the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal, pursuant to resolution of dispute in the VSV scheme Learned departmental representative did not have any objection to this proposition.

4.

Up on careful consideration I grant permission to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2021.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →