KUMAR SUNRISE JEWELLERS,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA WARD, RAYAGADA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which aims to settle tax disputes.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee subsequently applied to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The necessary declarations and certificates under the scheme were duly filed and issued.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI P.M. JAGTAP & CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),1 Bhubaneswar dated 8.3.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14.
At the outset, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee has moved an application dated 27.8.2020 to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 vide R.No.498149871270820, which is under process by the Pr. CIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar. He, therefore, submitted that . The assessee has duly filed the declarations in Form No. 1 and Form No. 2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No. 3 as per Section 5(1) of the Scheme accepting the assessee’s declaration under the same Scheme.
P a g e 1 | 2 40/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 13- 14
Keeping in view these facts and circumstances of the case including especially the fact that the assessee has duly complied with the necessary requirements under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the permission as sought by the assessee is granted and this appeal of the assessee is dismissed treating the same as withdrawn. We also make it clear that in a situation, the grievance of assessee for the year under consideration could not be resolved under Vivad se Vishwas scheme, then the assessee would be entitled to seek recall of this dismissal order by filing a miscellaneous application.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced on 28 /1/2021. Sd/- sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) (P.M Jagtap) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack; Dated 28 /1/2021 B.K.Parida, SPS(os) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant: M/s. kumar Sunrise Jewellers, Muncipal Complex, Main Road, Rayagada
More judgments on Section 5(1)
- Bajrang Singh Rajawat, Jaipur vs ITO Ward-7(2), JaipurITA 1120/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2014-15
- Krrishraj Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The ACIT, Central Circle-3, SuratITA 1232/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed4 May 2026AY 2016-17
- Krrishraj Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The ACIT, Central Circle-3, SuratITA 1231/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 May 2026AY 2015-16
- Amit Satpathy, Mumbai vs ITO-42(2)(1), MumbaiITA 5930/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
- Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs Central Circel 2(1), MumbaiITA 6281/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: Disposed9 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026