What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed two appeals against the same order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. The assessee later submitted that they had already filed another appeal for the same assessment year and order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the existence of multiple appeals filed by the assessee for the same assessment year and order, leading to the withdrawal of the current appeal.

Jayesh K Sampat vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J ” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Hearing: 27.09.2016Pronounced: 27.09.2016

आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-38, Mumbai dated 22.11.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

The assessee has raised the following grounds:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38 has erred in law and in facts in confirming the income of the appellant at Rs. 13,05,770/- as against returned income of Rs 3,59,820/-

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 38 has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without complying with the principles of natural justice.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 38 has erred in law and in facts in confirming the rate of 2% income on entire bank deposits as against 0.15% offered and by making an addition of Rs 9,45,950/-.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 38 has erred in law and in facts in estimating the income on gross receipts without reducing the transfer entries amount in bank account from which no income is earned.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 38 has erred in law and in facts in confirming 2% income on entire bank deposits managed by agents as against 0.03% offered by the appellant.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 38 has erred in law and in facts in confirming income of the appellant of Rs. 5,60,062/- on a/c of jewellary found at the time of search even though it was acquired at the time of marriages of his parents & himself and are within the limits of exemption available under Income Tax Act, 1961.

7.The Ld. CIT(A) -38 has erred in law and in facts in not allowing business expenses against the income estimated”.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn since the assessee has already filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2010-11 which is numbered as ITA No. 1005/Mum/2015. Taking note of the submission of the Ld. Counsel, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn as the assessee filed two appeals against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

JAYESH K SAMPAT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments