SH. SUNIL KUMAR GARG,MOGA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1410/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 October 2020AY 2005-062 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A). During the hearing, the assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeals can be withdrawn due to availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT

Both the above appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld.

Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeal)-3 Gurgaon dt. 23/09/2019.

2.

In both the above appeals the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee furnished separate applications for withdrawal of the appeals.

3.

During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that since the assessee had availed the immunity scheme i.e; Vivad Se Vishwas and the Income Tax Department had issued Form No. 3, in response to the applications filed by the assessee, under section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, therefore the appeals of the assessee may be allowed to be withdrawn. The details of above said certificates are as under:

1.

Sl.No. Appeal No. Name of Case Certificate No. 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Garg 675527760261020 2. ITA No. 1411/Chd/2019 Shri Sunil Kumar Garg 675668740261020

4.

The Ld. DR did not object if the above appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

In view of the above the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.

6.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 29/10/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →