INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. SMT. RUKHSHANA DADACHANJI,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 218/JAB/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 February 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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?

Section 143(3),Section 5(2),Section 6

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

Hearing: 03/02/2022Pronounced: 03/02/2022

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 218 /Jab/2016
CO 22/Jab/2016

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.

1.

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would, on being inquired, clarify to be supportive (of the order by the impugned order) and, thus, be also treated as withdrawn.

3.

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)

All 430 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →