KALLAM SURYANARAYANA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the assessee settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and received a certificate from the Principal Commissioner.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal against an order under Section 263 becomes infructuous when the consequential order is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE
Per D.S.Sunder Singh, Accountant Member :
The appeal is filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT), Guntur dated 21.09.2016 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10. 2
When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that subsequent to passing the order u/s 263, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed consequential order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act giving effect to the said order u/s 263. The assessee preferred to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and the Ld.Pr.CIT, Vijayawada was pleased to issue the Certificate in Form No.3 on 02.02.2021 for pending tax dispute in respect of consequential order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Form No.3 is a certificate issued under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, by the Pr.CIT, determining the total tax payable by the assessee in response to the application made by the assessee under the scheme. Therefore, submitted that, as the appeal against the consequential order is being settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee’s appeal against the order u/s 263 of the Act becomes infructuous, hence, requested to allow the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to recalling the order in case the certificate issued by the Pr.CIT is withdrawn at a future date. Thus, on issue of the certificate in Form No.3, the tax dispute stands settled unless the certificate is withdrawn or cancelled by the Pr.CIT.
During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not object for dismissal of appeal as withdrawn.
We have heard both the sides and gone through the Form No.3 and also the withdrawal petition filed by the assessee under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR did not object for disposal of the appeal as requested by the assessee, hence, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. However, in case the certificate issued by the Pr.Commissioner is withdrawn or cancelled at a future date for any reason, it is open to the assessee to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal. In that event, the order passed by the Tribunal would be recalled in accordance with law.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2021. (एन के चौिरी ) (धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) न्याधयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 18.03.2021 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतषि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. तिर्धाररिी/ The Assessee– Kallam Suryanarayana Reddy, D.No.12-14-121/3, 8th Lane, Syamala Nagar, Guntur 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur
The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax , Guntur 4. तवभधगीय प्रतितितर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, तवशधखधिटणम/DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5.गधर्ाफ़धईि / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER ////
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026