SH. GURPREET SINGH,MOHALI vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 348/ASR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 July 2021AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed multiple appeals before the ITAT for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14. The assessee subsequently opted to settle the tax arrears under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for settlement of tax disputes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA

For Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, D. R
Hearing: 07.07.2021Pronounced: 07.07.2021

ORDER Per, Bench:

All the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana dated 15.03.2017.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee has requested for withdrawal of these appeals filed by the assessee and stated that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment years under consideration

I.T.A Nos. 342 to 348/Asr/2017 2 under the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020”. A certificate to this effect under Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has also been filed.

3.

The learned DR has no objection.

4.

In view of the above, we accept the request of the assessee for withdrawal of these appeals.

5.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/07/2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →