KISHORE AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI
In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs
ITA 5469/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13
For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR
…s clearly an afterthought. 4.7 in the following cases it is held that omission to claim set off of past intangible additions against cash credit would give rise to a presumption that former amounts were not available for set off. (1) R. Dalmia vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 401 (Del) (2) CIT vs G. M. Chennabasappa (1959) 35 ITR 261 (A.P.) In view of above case laws it can be said that as appellant has not made claim of telescopic benefit during assessment proceedings before AO or during search or post search enquiry it can be presumed that unaccounted sale proceeds received on sale of Matunga property were never avail…