TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Mumbai rules on appeals challenging Commissioner of Income Tax orders, addressing procedural delays, natural justice, and penalty imposition.</h1> <h3>Mr. Sagir Mahmoodmiya Dond and others Versus Income Tax Officer and others</h3> The ITAT Mumbai addressed multiple legal issues in appeals challenging the Commissioner of Income Tax orders, including procedural delays, natural justice ... Withdrawal of matter – Held that:- No one appeared on the behalf of the Assessee – through letter assessee submitted that they are not interested in perusing the matter and would like to withdraw the appeals – Revenue is not having any objection – withdrawal allowed. Issues:Appeal challenging Commissioner of Income Tax orders - Delay in filing appeal - Natural justice principles not followed - Penalty imposition - Show cause notice validity - Inadequate evidence - Additions made by AO - Penalty proceedings - Undervaluation of investments - Reliance on previous decisions - Estimation of income - Withdrawal of appeals.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai dealt with appeals filed by multiple assessees against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-I Thane. The issues raised in all appeals were common, leading to a common order for convenience. The grounds taken by the assessees were also common, challenging various aspects of the Commissioner's orders. These grounds included contentions related to the delay in filing the appeal, allegations of not following natural justice principles, penalty imposition, validity of show cause notices, lack of sufficient evidence, additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO), penalty proceedings, undervaluation of investments, reliance on previous decisions, and estimation of income.The cases involved a search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act in the Dond Group, leading to penalty notices being issued by the AO under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Group members appealed before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), who dismissed their appeals after considering submissions and penalty orders. The assessees then challenged these orders before the ITAT.During the hearing, none of the Dond Group members appeared, but letters expressing a desire to withdraw the appeals were on record. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal, leading the ITAT to allow the withdrawal and dismiss the appeals accordingly. The ITAT pronounced the order on 7th June 2013, closing the matter.In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai addressed various legal issues in the appeals, including procedural delays, natural justice principles, penalty imposition, and the validity of penalty proceedings. The withdrawal of appeals by the assessees marked the end of the litigation process, with the ITAT's decision finalizing the outcome of the cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
