SMT. SMTITI R AGRWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4828/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 September 2020AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee informed the Tribunal that they had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received the necessary approval. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15. The grounds of appeal challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, principles of natural justice, and additions made under Section 68.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings and subsequent additions. However, the appeal was withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 188

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-1” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Jhunjhunwala
For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Hearing: 16.09.2020Pronounced: 16.09.2020

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 24.5.2019 and pertains to A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under :- “Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned DCIT, Central Circle 7(2), Mumbai ("A.O.") u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 196f ("the Act"), this appeal is being submitted on the following grounds of appeal which, it is prayed, may be considered without prejudice to one another: 1.0 Re : Invalidity of reassessment proceedings On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the-jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. under section 147 of the Act was incorrect and invalid for the each of the following independent reasons: 1.01 The Appellant submits that the reasons as recorded for reopening the assessment cannot give him any belief that income of the Appellant has escaped assessment. 1.02 The impugned reopening was made by A.O. mechanically merely on the basis of communication received from Unit 7(4), Investigation Wing, Mumbai, and without any independent application of mind.

2.0 On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order is bad in law being contrary to the principles of natural justice as the A.O., before relying on said investigation report and other material has not confronted the same to the Appellant.

3.0 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. has erred in making an addition of Rs. 7,62,600/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act.

4.0 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 7,62,600/- has been made by the A.O. on the basis of the alleged transactions which have not been entered into by the Appellant.

5.0 The learned AO has erred in totally ignoring and going against Section 188 of the Finance Act, 2016 which provides that the amount of undisclosed income declared in accordance with section 183 shall not be included in the total income of the declarant for any assessment year under the Act, if the declarant makes the payment of tax and surcharge referred to in section 184 and the penalty referred to in section 185, by the date specified under sub- section (1) of section 187.”

3.

At the outset in this case learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has filed application under Vivad Se Vishwas Tak Scheme. The necessary approval for the same has been received. Hence learned Counsel submitted that assessee now wants to withdraw the appeal.

4.

Upon hearing learned Departmental Representative, I permit the withdrawal of this appeal. Order pronounce on 16.9.2020.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →