MAHESH VIJAY PAWAR,MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD-34(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2815/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mahesh Vijay Pawar, the appellant, contesting an order from the Income Tax Officer (ITO) regarding additions made to his income for the assessment year 2014-15 under section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The primary issues raised included the legality of the order under section 143(3), the rejection of a request for a revised valuation report by the Department Valuation Officer (DVO), and the addition of Rs. 23,10,404 to the assessee's income. However, the appeal was rendered infructuous due to the acceptance of the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, which aims to resolve tax disputes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712148 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI; VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Valuation report; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2815/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mahesh Vijay Pawar, B-179/3 Government Colony, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Vs. ITO-34(2)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AGGPP 5115 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Virtually Appeared Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds: 1. Ground No 1: Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Printed from counselvise.com On the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the order passed by the Income Tax Offic as the learned AO) is bad in law in so far as the addition of Rs.33,47,287 made under section 50C of the Act is concerned. 2. Ground No 2: Non valuation report by the DVO. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, ADDL/JCIT(A) CIT(A)\") erred in rejecting the appellant's request to seek revised valuation report since the original report contained several mistakes committed by the Department Valuation Officer in the valuation report dated 24th August 2017. 3. Ground No 3: Addition of Rs. 23, 10,404/ Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the learned CIT on the various errors committed in the valuation report dated 24th August 2017 and not deleting the addition of Rs. 23,10,404/ made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted for resolution of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 in this regard has already been filed and accepted by the co authority. It was, thus, submitted that in light of the said development, the present appeal no longer survives for adjudication. In view of the above submission and upon perusal of the record, we find that the appeal stands rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. ITA No. 2815/MUM/2024 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the order passed by the Income Tax Officer 34(2)(3) (hereinafter referred to as the learned AO) is bad in law in so far as the addition of Rs.33,47,287 made under section 50C of the Act is concerned. 2. Ground No 2: Non-acceptance of request for the revised valuation report by the DVO. prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, ADDL/JCIT(A) - 4 KOLKATA (\"the learned CIT(A)\") erred in rejecting the appellant's request to seek revised valuation report since the original report contained several committed by the Department Valuation Officer in the valuation report dated 24th August 2017. 3. Ground No 3: Addition of Rs. 23, 10,404/- is bad in law. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the learned CIT(A), erred in not adjudicating on the various errors committed in the valuation report dated 24th August 2017 and not deleting the addition of Rs. 23,10,404/ made by the Assessing Officer to the total the assessee. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted for resolution of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and that the necessary declaration in this regard has already been filed and accepted by the co authority. It was, thus, submitted that in light of the said development, the present appeal no longer survives for adjudication. In view of the above submission and upon perusal of the record, we find that the appeal stands rendered infructuous. ccordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as Mahesh Vijay Pawar 2 ITA No. 2815/MUM/2024 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the order er 34(2)(3) (hereinafter referred to as the learned AO) is bad in law in so far as the addition of Rs.33,47,287 made under section 50C of the Act is concerned. acceptance of request for the revised prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances 4 KOLKATA (\"the learned CIT(A)\") erred in rejecting the appellant's request to seek revised valuation report since the original report contained several committed by the Department Valuation Officer in the is bad in law. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in circumstances (A), erred in not adjudicating on the various errors committed in the valuation report dated 24th August 2017 and not deleting the addition of Rs. 23,10,404/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted for resolution of the dispute under the , and that the necessary declaration in this regard has already been filed and accepted by the competent authority. It was, thus, submitted that in light of the said development, the present appeal no longer survives for adjudication. In view of the above submission and upon perusal of the record, we find that the appeal stands rendered infructuous. ccordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as Printed from counselvise.com 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 2815/MUM/2024 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 24 Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mahesh Vijay Pawar 3 ITA No. 2815/MUM/2024 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 24/07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "