RITA PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ITO-IT-3(3)(1) , MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of both appeals. The primary reason for this decision was the applications filed by the assessee on 04.09.2024, seeking to withdraw ITA No. 915/Mum/2024 (AY 2013-14) and ITA No. 916/Mum/2024 (AY 2014-15). The Ld. DR (Departmental Representative) for the revenue did not raise any objection to these withdrawal applications. The Tribunal found considerable cogency in the assessee's contentions regarding the withdrawal. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the substantive grounds of appeal as they were withdrawn by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rita Patel, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the orders dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15. These orders were passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals challenged the upholding of the reopening of assessments, the validity of approval under section 151, and directions regarding the cost of acquisition. On 04.09.2024, the assessee filed applications praying for the withdrawal of both appeals. The Revenue did not raise any objection to these withdrawal applications.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide whether to allow the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The grounds raised by the assessee in their appeals challenged the following: 1. Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 was valid, arguing it was a mere change of opinion without new tangible material. 2. Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when confirmed solely based on the assessment order for AY 2014-15. 3. Whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to the absence of proper approval under section 151. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the cost of acquisition to be taken as on 02.06.2012 without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the cost of acquisition in accordance with the High Court's order. The assessee argued that the reopening was bad in law, based on a change of opinion, lacked valid approval, and the directions on the cost of acquisition were erroneous. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment, other than their lack of objection to the withdrawal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): - 1. Both the appeals are filed by the appellant/assessee against the orders dated 28.12.2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 57 [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], Page | 1
2. The assessee is in appeal before us and has raised following grounds for A.Y. 2013-14: 1. “On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment. Such order upholding reassessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
2. The Ld. CIT Not appreciating the fact that the invoking of provisions u/s 147 of the Act for this assessment year is only change of opinion by the Ld. A.O as there is no new tangible material found that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
3. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment merely on the basis of assessment order passed for AY 2014-15. Such confirmation of reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
4. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment which was initiated without valid approval under section 151. Such reassessment proceedings initiated without valid approval is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
5. On given facts, circumstances and Judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in directing that cost of acquisition should be taken as on 02 June 2012, without referring the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). Such direction of Hon. CIT Appeals without referring to DVO is bad in law and liable to quashed.
6. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in directing that cost of acquisition should be taken as on 02nd June 2012. Such direction for treating cost as on 02nd June, 2012 is bad in law and liable to be amended.
7. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in ignoring the cost of acquisition in accordance with the Order of High Court. Such Order of Hon. CIT Appeals is bad in law and addition confirmed is liable to deleted.”
; A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Rita Patel 3. The assessee in his appeal before us has raised following grounds for A.Y. 2014-15: 1. “On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment. Such order upholding reassessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
2. The Ld. CIT not appreciating the fact that the invoking of provisions u/s 147 of the Act for this assessment year is only change of opinion by the Ld. A.O as there is no new tangible material found that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
3. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment which was initiated without valid approval under section 151. Such reassessment proceedings initiated without valid approval is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
4. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in directing that cost of acquisition should be taken as on 02nd June 2012, without referring the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). Such direction of Hon. CIT Appeals without referring to DVO is bad in law and liable to quashed.
5. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in directing that cost of acquisition should be taken as on 02nd June 2012. Such direction for treating cost as on 02nd June, 2012 is bad in law and liable to be amended.
6. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in ignoring the cost of acquisition in accordance with the Order of High Court. Such Order of Hon. CIT Appeals is bad in law and addition confirmed is liable to deleted.”
4. Assessee vide its letter dated 04.09.2024 prayed for withdrawal of appeal in for A.Y.2013-14. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the contents of the said Application as under: - 1. “It is hereby submitted that the case of the assessee is fixed for hearing on 4 September 2024.
; A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15 Rita Patel 2. The appeal was filed by assessee on 29th February 2024 against the order passed by Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax on 28th December 2023.
3. We hereby submit that the assessee intends to withdraw the said appeal.
4. We request your good self to accept the application and allow us to withdraw the appeal.
5. Inconvenience is deeply regretted.”
5. Similarly, the assessee vide its letter dated 04.09.2024 prayed for withdrawal of appeal in for A.Y.2014-15. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the contents of the said Application as under: - 1. “It is hereby submitted that the case of the assessee is fixed for hearing on 4th September 2024.
The appeal was filed by assessee on 29th February 2024 against the order passed by Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax on 28th December 2024.
We hereby submit that the assessee intends to withdraw the said appeal.
We request your good self to accept the application and allow us to withdraw the appeal.
Inconvenience is deeply regretted.”
In view of the applications, we have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue. The Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the withdrawal of this appeal.
We find considerable cogency in the contentions of Assessee as aforesaid. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, we accept the
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
