NEELAM MUKESH KUMAR PATEL MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 24 (3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6025/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 October 2021AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had paid the disputed tax and the Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to re-evaluate the property value. Subsequently, the assessee paid the revised tax demand and sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can withdraw an appeal after settling the tax demand and whether the Tribunal should permit such withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 50,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

Hearing: 04.10.2021Pronounced: 04.10.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-36/IT-222/ITO-24(3)(1)/2017-18 vide dated 28.06.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(3)(1) Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 15.12.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard the learned Sr. Departmental Representative and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. During the course of 2 Neelam Mukesh Kumar Patel; AY 10 -11 hearing the Registry has placed a letter dated 11th August, 2021, the context of the letter read as under:-

1.

“1. As assessment order date 15.12.2017 was passed under section 143(3) by the Ld. Income Tax Officer-24(3)91), Mumbai completing the assessment at ₹9,46,230/- income. However, the said assessment order was cancelled by the Hon’ble CIT(A)-36, Mumbai vide the impugned order dated 28.06.2019 partly allowing the appeal with the direction to the Ld. Assessing Officer to incorporate the finding of DVO under section 50 in arriving at correct figure of the value of the property sold and the Tax implication thereon.

2. pursuant to the CIT(A) order dated 28.06.2019, the ld. Asst. Valuation officer-I had passed the Valuation Report dated 11.09.2020. The copy of said Valuation Report is Annexed hereto as Annexure-1. Accordingly, the Ld. Assessing Officer passed the Order dated 26.02.2021 under section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by incorporating the fair market value of the property proposed by the ld. Asst. Valuation Officer-1 and re- computed income to ₹2,66,640/- and issued the tax demand of ₹11,688/-. The copy of Order under section 154 passed by the Ld. Income Tax Officer-24(3)(1)- Mumbai is annexued thereto as Annexure-II.

3.

In order to buy peace, the Appellate decided to pay the aforesaid tax demand and acordngly appeallant had paid the tax demand of ₹14,668/- vide challan dated 31.03.3021. The copy of the said tax paid challan is attached thereto as AnnexureIII.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →