DCIT CC -4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. HITESH S. MEHTA, MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed
ITA 6026/MUM/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 1992-93
Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6026/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) बिधम/ Hitesh S. Mehta Central Range-4, Mumbai. 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Vs. Pr. Cit(2), Mumbai Worli, Mumbai-400018. Room No.1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Hitesh S. Mehta बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-4(1) 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400018. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992-93. Ita. No.5190/Mum/2017 6026/M/2017 A.Y.1992-93 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992- 93. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / ShriFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 80L
80L of the Act amounting to Rs.12,000/-.
8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts that in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234A,
234B and 234C of the Act.
9. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income assessed
