RAJESH KUMAR JOON,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-42(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7622/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 March 2023AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15. During the hearing, the assessee submitted that they had opted to settle the dispute under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed in light of the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI ]

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Saini
For Respondent: Ms. Beenu
Hearing: 23.02.2023Pronounced: 17.03.2023
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.07.2019 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 (hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) New Delhi, for assessment year 2014-15.

2.

At the time of hearing the AR of the assessee by letter filed at the time of hearing along with Form No. 3 dated 15.04.2021 submitting that he has opted to settle the dispute involved in the impugned appeal under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

3.

The ld. DR also agreed with the above contentions.

4.

On careful consideration of the fact, we allow the assessee’s request under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and dismiss the appeal.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5.

Order pronounced in the open court on : 17/03/2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →