INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. SMT. RUKHSHANA DADACHANJI,
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the dispute resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was complete. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were rendered not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal and the assessee filed a cross-objection against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal and cross-objection survive for adjudication after the assessee opted 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,
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE & SH. MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
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would, on being inquired, clarify to be supportive (of the order by the impugned order) and, thus, be also treated as withdrawn.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.
More judgments on Section 5(2)
- Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs Kavita Khanwani, BeawarITA 867/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), International… vs Toyota Tsusho Corporation, GurgaonITA 1908/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Gurgaon vs DCIT Circle-3(1)(1) International Taxation…ITA 1514/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Gurgaon vs DCIT Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation…ITA 1513/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- DCIT Circle-3(1)(1) International Taxation… vs Toyota Tsusho Corporation, GurgaonITA 1508/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026