SHRI PAWAN BANSAL,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC, PATIALA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted by the department.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the reopening of assessment and an addition of Rs. 1,24,87,765/-. During the hearing, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment and the subsequent addition. However, the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आदेश/Order
PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 29/08/2019 of CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the reopening the assessment by issuance of notice u/s 148 in as much as there has been no reason to believe leading to alleged escapement of income and order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in upholding the reopening in as much the assessment has been re-opened on the basis of borrowed information without any independent enquiry and reason to believe before the recording of reasons and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,24,87,765/- applying the provisions of Section 69A treating long term capital gains to be unexplained money which is arbitrary and unjustified.
4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has without appreciating the facts as placed before him in the right perspective upheld the addition based on statement of broker who has not been allowed opportunity of cross-examination by the assessee which is arbitrary and unjustified.
5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in treating M/s Multiplus Resources Limited to be a paper company in utter disregard of the documents and explanations rendered with preconceived notions which is arbitrary and unjustified. 6. That the addition upheld is only based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises in utter disregard to the explanations rendered which renders the order illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the purchase is bogus based only on suspicion, conjectures and surmises in utter disregard to the explanations rendered which renders the order illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 8. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable.
Ld. Counsel for the Assessee furnished an application stating therein as under:
In the matter of relating to the assessment year 2011-12 fixed for hearing tomorrow the 11th of Januarv,2021.
Application for withdrawal of appeal.
Respectfully showeth as under:
The abovementioned appeal stands fixed for hearing tomorrow the 11 of January,2021. The assessee has moved an application under "The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas" Scheme which has been announced by the Government and settle the tax dispute. The Income Tax Department has since issued Form - 3 and as such, the assessee may be given permission to withdraw the appeal subject to payment of taxes by 31.03.2021 as computed by the department. Copy of Form - 3 is enclosed herewith.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026