COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I vs. ACTIS ADVISORS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/424/2013HC DelhiDLHC01085744201326 February 20212 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the application filed by the appellant/assessee seeking leave to withdraw the instant appeal (ITA 216/2013). The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that it had initiated steps to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court granted liberty to both the appellant/assessee and the respondent/Revenue to approach the Court if the designated authority does not issue a certificate in the prescribed form (Form-5). Consequently, the appeal was closed. The order passed in the application was to be placed in the case file of ITA No. 424/2013.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Actis Advisers Pvt. Ltd., filed an application seeking leave to withdraw its appeal (ITA 216/2013) before the Delhi High Court. The reason for withdrawal was that the assessee had initiated steps to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The counsel for the assessee stated that this resolution pertained not only to the instant appeal but also to a Revenue appeal (ITA 424/2013) which was on the regular board. The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellant/assessee should be granted leave to withdraw the instant appeal (ITA 216/2013) in light of the steps taken to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the application of the Vivad se Vishwas Act). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its counsel, submitted that it had initiated steps to take benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and therefore, sought to withdraw the appeal. The assessee relied on the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention was recorded for the Revenue in relation to this application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$-14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 216/2013 and CM APPL. No. 7933/2021 ACTIS ADVISERS PVT. LTD.' Appellant Through: Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Advocate. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH ORDER [Court hearing — "'1 video-conferencing on account of C0VID.19, CM APPL No. 7933/2021 1 This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/assessee seeking leave to withdraw the instant appeal in view of the fact that steps have been initiated by it to talce benefit of the, provisions of Direct Tax Viva Vishwas Act, 2020 [in short "the Act"]. ^ c .he 2 According to Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, who appears on beha appellant/assessee, the appellant/asseiee has resolved the * "J only in the instant appeal i.e., ITA 216/2013. but also in the Revenue appeal, which, according to him. is on|the regular board and is numbered as ITA 424/2013. I page 1 of 2 ITA 216/2013 Signing Date:21.01.2025 17:25:00 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

3.

Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant/assessee, the prayer made in the application is allowed. However, liberty is given to both, the appellant/assessee, as well as the respondent/Revenue, to approach the Court, in case, the designated authority does not issue a certificate in the prescribed form i.e., Form-5. ITA 216/2013 4. In view of the order passed in QM APPL. No. 7933/2021, the appeal shall stand closed. The order passed today shall be placed by the Registry in the case file concerning ITA No. 424/2013. FEBRUARY 26, 2021 tr 1 ( Cu raAv shakdher, j TALWANT SINGH, J Click here to check corri2endum, if any ITA 216/2013 page 2 of2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →