AR MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI

That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 147/143(3), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of share application money by treating it as alleged income of the assessee company u/s 68 of the Act and that too by recording incorrect facts findings and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without bringing anything contrary on record and by disregarding the submissions, evidences and material placed by the assessee and in violation of principal of natural justice and without providing the opportunity of cross examination. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of share application money u/s 68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of alleged commission paid.

That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making impugned addition and framing the impugned reassessment order is contrary to law and facts and AR Manufacturing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT void ab initio and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds and without observing the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” (B) At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) and that the Designated Authority has already issued Form-3 under VSVS. A copy of Form-3 issued by the Designated Authority was also enclosed with the aforesaid letter. He also filed a copy of Form-4 filed by the assessee in pursuance of the aforesaid Form-3. Learned counsel for the assessee, as well as, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted before us, at the time of hearing, that the appeal has become infructuous in view of the assessee opting for VSVS; and that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. After due consideration and in view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that this appeal has become infructuous on account of aforesaid VSVS, and that this appeal may be treated as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, this appeal having