MANOJ KUMAR VERMA,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-58(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2381/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 February 2022AY 2013-144 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 noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the ACIT. The additions pertained to unexplained cash credit and personal expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal has become infructuous due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, and if so, the appropriate course of action for the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi, [Ld.

CIT(A)”, for short], dated 02.01.2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

Grounds taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of ACIT for assessing the income in the hands of appellant which is contrary to law, equity, justice, facts and material on records.

2.

That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of ACIT for making an addition of Rs.41,37,950 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit, while the onus prescribed under section 68 has been discharged by appellant.

3.

That the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of ACIT for making an addition of Rs.89,607 on account of personal nature, as 20% of Depreciation of Car, Telephone expenses, Car Running & Maintenance and Travelling expenses, though no instance of personal expenses has been pointed out by ACIT & Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) and accounts of the assessee have been duly audited by a Chartered Accountant and a report thereof has been submitted during the assessment proceedings.

4.

The appellant craves eave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

(B) At the time of hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”, for short) for the assessee informed us that the assessee has opted to settle the aforementioned appeal under Vivad se Vishwas ACT, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) and that the Designated Authority has already issued Form-5 under VSVS. He also drew our attention to letter dated 14.02.2022 submitted before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’, for short), in this regard.

Copy of Form-5 issued by designated authority under VSVS was also enclosed with the aforesaid letter. Learned Senior Departmental Representative for revenue submitted before us that this appeal may be treated as withdrawn and may be dismissed on account of the aforesaid VSVS. After due consideration and in view

Manoj Kumar Verma vs. ITO of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that this appeal has become infructuous on account of aforesaid VSVS, and this appeal may be treated as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS.

Accordingly, this appeal having become infructuous, is treated as withdrawn and is hereby dismissed.

(B.1) Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reason the disputes under this appeal before us are not settled under the aforesaid VSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of this appeal in accordance with law.

(C) In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

This order was already pronounced orally on 15th February, 2022 in Open Court, in the presence of representatives of both sides, after conclusion of the hearing. Now this order in writing is signed today on 16.02.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →