USHA DEVI MAGANTI,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since Form-3 was issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the option for the assessee to seek revival if the settlement benefit was denied.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020 and was issued Form-3. The department had initiated proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn given the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2008-09 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 25-01-2019 passed in appeal No.0130 / 2016-17/ ACIT, Circle-4(1) / CIT(A)-1 / Hyd / 2018-19, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].
At the outset, we are informed during the course of hearing from the assessee’s side that she has filed for settlement benefit under the ‘Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020’ in prescribed Form No.1 & 2 and Form(s)-3 in tune thereto; also stands issued.
The assessee’s sole identical plea in this case is that since the department is yet to finalise the settlement in tune with Form(s)-3 issued under the scheme, this appeal may not be dismissed as withdrawn as on date. We find no merit in assessee’s contentions per se. The fact remains that the assessee has already been issued Form-3, no purpose would be served if this case is kept pending. We therefore order that this appeal be treated as dismissed as withdrawn with a rider that it shall be very much open for the assessee to file for revival of this case, if the settlement benefit under the scheme is denied to her for technical reasons.
This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th April, 2021
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026