Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH,
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE & SH. MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE
ORDER Per Bench This is an appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection (CO) by the assessee, directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 28/7/2016, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting her assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 30/3/2015 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13.
CO 22/Jab/2016 Rukhshana Dadachanji v. Asst. CIT (AY 2012-13) 2. At the very outset, it was submitted by Sh. Ternain, that the assessee- respondent had opted for the resolution of her tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Sheme, 2020 of the Government of India. Form 5, signifying the full and final settlement of the tax under dispute, issued under section 5(2) read with section 6 of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, has been enclosed along with the assessee’s application seeking permission for withdrawal of the Revenue’s appeal, which may accordingly be allowed, to which Sh. Dayasagar, the ld. CIT-DR did not very fairly raise any objection. The assessee’s CO, he would, on being inquired, clarify to be supportive (of the order by the impugned order) and, thus, be also treated as withdrawn.
We have heard the parties. It is clear that all the processes in relation to settlement of the tax dispute under reference under the DTVsV Act, providing an alternate dispute resolution mechanism to the assessees, whether as an appellant or respondent, stand completed in the instant case. Why, the said Act itself provides for an automatic vacation of the relevant appeal/CO on the tax dispute being settled thereunder. In that view of the matter, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO do not survive for adjudication. We accordingly have no hesitation in permitting withdrawal of the same, which are rendered not maintainable before the Tribunal.