JAYSHREE P DIXIT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4323/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 December 2020AY 2015-163 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The dismissal was subject to the assessee's right to revive the appeal if the matter was not settled under the scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding an addition made by the AO as unexplained investment. The assessee claimed not to be the beneficial owner of the property.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is the beneficial owner of the property and if the addition made as unexplained investment is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi (AR)
Hearing: 22/12/2020Pronounced: 22/12/2020

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 30 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”]. Relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds.:- “I On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant submit that the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred upholding that the appellant is an owner of the property by virtue of the registered documents for purchase of property.

A.Y.2015-16 The appellant submits that she is not the beneficial owner in the immovable property.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant submit that the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred upholding the addition of Rs.13,91,570/- made by Ld Assessing Officer as unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the I. T. Act. 1961.

3.

The appellant submits that additions of Rs.13,91,570/- made u/s 69 of the I. T. Act, 1961 be deleted.

3. The appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, alter, amend or annual any of the grounds of appeal

at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers as may be necessary.”

4. 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.

5.

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

6.

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.2015-16 Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of his appeal.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →