MS.NEENA SUNIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-18(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5168/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2020AY 2014-153 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 informed the Tribunal that a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been filed and the appeal would be withdrawn upon final resolution. The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15. The assessee had declared Long Term Capital Gain and commission paid for bogus transactions, which were added back by the revenue authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69 were justified, and whether the income enhancement was arbitrary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 23/12/2020Pronounced: 23/12/2020

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 29 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”]. Relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds .:- “I. The order dated 29.07.2019 bearing No. CIT(A)-29/IT- 615/ITO-18(2)(4)/2016-17 by CIT(A)-29, Mumbai is arbitrary, against natural justice, unlawful, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, invalid and therefore, liable to be quashed.

2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made u/s 68 of the A.Y.2014-15 I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.66,75,735/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the appellant as unexplained investment.

3.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made u/s 69 of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.2,00,272/- on account of 3% commission paid for the bogus transactions by the appellant as unexplained expenditure.

4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by Rs.10,20,000/- without any basis.

5. The appellant craves to alter, add, delete, substitute, or modify and other grounds of appeal

.”

3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he has filed the necessary declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and is awaiting for final resolution of the matter under the said scheme. He submitted that upon completion of the necessary formalities, he will withdraw the appeal. In response to the suggestion from the Bench, he fairly accepted that he has no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn as long as his right for revival of the appeal are protected, in the event of, for some unfortunate reason, the matter being not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

4.

The Ld. DR also did not object to course so suggested.

5.

In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, subject to be rider that in the unlikely event of matter not being resolved under the A.Y.2014-15 Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of his appeal.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn – subject to the observation above.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →