SHRI ASHISH KUMAR SONI,KATNI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal has become infructuous and non-maintainable due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS).
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal filed against a revision order remains maintainable when the assessee opts for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTNT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HONBLE
O R D E R Per Bench: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 27/02/2019 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jabalpur (‘Pr.CIT’, for short) in respect of the assessee’s assessment u/s. 143(3), dated 02/09/2016, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
None appeared for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing, even as there is an application on behalf of the assessee seeking permission for withdrawal of the same, in view of the assessee having opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020 (VSVS), enclosing alongwith Form 5 dated 25/03/2021.
(A.Y. 2014-15) Ashish K. Soni v. Pr. CIT 3. A perusal of the record shows that the assessment pursuant to the impugned order was made on 22/01/2019, which stands appealed against by the assessee before the first appellate authority on 03/01/2020. It is this appeal which was outstanding for adjudication at the time of the assessee applying under VSVS on 18/01/2021 in Form 1 (copy on record). The matter has attained finality with the acceptance of the assessee’s application and the consequent issue of Form 5 under Rule 7 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020 on 25/03/2021. The assessee’s appeal against revision order becomes, under the circumstances, infructuous. We, therefore, have no hesitation in accepting the assessee’s request, to which no objection was also raised by the ld. CIT-DR during hearing, dismissing his appeal as infructuous. The same in fact becomes non-maintainable in view of the provisions of Direct Tax VSV Act, 2020. We decide accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous.
Order Pronounced in open Court on this 11th day of March, 2022.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026