RAFAT ADIL LATIF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5852/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 October 2017AY 2006-073 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 applied to withdraw the appeal as the tax demand was settled under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order that treated cash deposits of Rs. 14,50,000 as undisclosed income. The assessee claimed it was surplus cash from truck operations.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits were from undisclosed income or accumulated surplus. The appeal was withdrawn before this issue was adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI P.K. BANSAL (VP) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Taher Plumber (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 09/10/2017Pronounced: 09/10/2017

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 15/10/2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2006-07, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee against assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has preferred the present appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by raising the following effective ground of appeal:

On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned CIT (A)-32, Mumbai erred in holding that the cash of Rs. 14,50,000/- deposited by the appellant on various days, was out 2 Assessment Year: 2006-07 of her undisclosed income u/s 69 of the I T Act, 1961 and not surplus of cash balance after meeting the trip expenses, collected from drivers plying her trucks and accumulated by her over a period of time.

3. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has moved an application for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that she has settled her tax demand by filling application under Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme Rules, 2016 before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. In terms of the scheme, she has paid the entire tax demanded by the department on the quantum additions and 25% of the penalty levied and. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since, the assessee wants to withdraw the appeal, she may be permitted withdraw the present appeal.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose the application filed on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we allow the application for withdrawal of the appeal and dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006-2007 is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th. October, 2017. (P.K. BANSAL) (RAM LAL NEGI) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated: 09/10/2017

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →