YAMIN CONTRACTOR,ROORKEE vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee preferred an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2015-16. The assessee subsequently opted to settle tax arrears under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be dismissed in light of the assessee opting for settlement under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN
ORDER
PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Learned CIT(Appeals), Dehradun {CIT(A)} and pertains to Assessment Year: 2015-16.
The captioned appeal is a part of appeals in which information has been received that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year under consideration under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. It has been stated that the necessary declaration in accordance with Section 4 of The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 has been filed by the assessee.
Considering the aforesaid situation, the captioned appeal is consigned to the records and treated as dismissed.
However, the aforesaid is subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating to tax arrears for the captioned assessment year is not ultimately resolved in terms of the aforestated Act, the appellant (i.e., the assessee) shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal and the Tribunal shall consider such application appropriately as per law. The respondent (i.e., the Revenue) has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat.
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is consigned to the records and, for statistical purposes, is treated as dismissed. Above decision was announced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 18th August, 2020.
More judgments on Section 4
- Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Rajkot vs ITO Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 927/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026