SHRI ANAND BAHARANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 86/JAB/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur02 February 2021AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to move for restoration if the scheme application was not accepted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against assessment orders for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14. The assessee later opted for the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the tax due under it.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Neeraja Pradhan, CIT-DR
Hearing: 05/02/2021Pronounced: 05/02/2021

ORDER

Per Sanjay Arora, AM:

1.

This is set of three Appeals by the Assessee, i.e., for three consecutive years, being assessment years (AYs.) 2011-12 to 2013-14, agitating the Order dated 09/10/2019 (AY 2011-12) and 18/06/2020 (AYs. 2012-13 & 2013-14) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short), dismissing the assessee’s appeals contesting his assessments under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for these years. The appeals raising common issues, were posted for being heard and, accordingly, heard together, and are being disposed of per a common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →