FIBCOM INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1805/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 August 2022AY 2014-152 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 allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as per the assessee's request.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought withdrawal of their appeal before the ITAT. This was due to opting for settlement of tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and having obtained the necessary form from the department.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal could be withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CA
Hearing: 16.08.2022Pronounced: 16.08.2022

ORDER

PER C.M. GARG, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.05.2018 of the CIT(A)-3, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, sought withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee stating that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year under consideration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The assessee has obtained Form No.5 from the Department, copy of which has been placed on record. He accordingly submitted that this appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the Department. The Sr. DR has filed an application dated 11.08.2022 for adjournment of the case to a convenient date.

4.

In view of the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, we allow the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →