What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and allowed the withdrawal request.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the computation of capital gains and indexation. The Assessing Officer had granted indexation from 1991-92 instead of 01/04/1998.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct period for indexation of capital gains. However, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn before adjudication on merits.

Imtiaz Sattar Oommerbhoy vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2017

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-DR

Hearing: 28/09/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is in appeal, challenging the impugned order dated 29/03/2016 of the First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, with respect to computation of capital gains and indexation.

During hearing, Shri Hiro Rai, ld. counsel for the assessee, moved application with a request to withdraw the appeal filed by the assessee. On the other hand, Shri M.C.

Omi Ningshen, ld. DR, had no objection to the request of the assessee.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present appeal, the assessee declared income of ` 50,60,040/- in his return filed on 24/09/2011. Apart from other details, the Ld. Assessing Officer asked for the details with respect to long term capital gains of `29,98,859/-, which was claimed to be along with other family members. The firm was carrying on business of manufacturer of soaps and detergent, etc. The assessee along with the other family members sold the respective interest in the properties and allowed possession to the buyer along with rights. The assessee claimed that he does not own residential house and invested substantial sum of his shares of the proceeds in a residential property. The Ld. Assessing Officer did not grant indexation from 01/04/1998 but granted from the base year i.e. 1991-92, the year in which dissolution notice was given to the firm by the partners. Without going into much deliberation, since the assessee wants to withdraw the appeal therefore, considering the application of the assessee, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 29/09/2017

IMTIAZ SATTAR OOMMERBHOY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments