PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA

ITA/1/2020HC RajasthanRJHC02104985201929 November 2021Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,UMA SHANKER VYAS2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that both the appellant and the respondent jointly stated that the appellant had settled the matter under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. They jointly produced Form-5 dated 04.03.2021, issued by the designated authority, as evidence of this settlement. Based on this joint submission, both learned counsels agreed that the appeal had become infructuous. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeal accordingly. The copy of Form-5 was kept on record. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original assessment or appeal, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds due to the settlement.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by EIH Ltd. (the appellant) against the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1), Kolkata (the respondent) for the assessment year 2013-14. Both parties jointly informed the High Court that the appellant had settled the matter under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. A Photostat copy of Form-5 dated 04.03.2021, issued by the designated authority (Samar Bhadra, PCIT, Kolkata-1), was produced as evidence of this settlement. Consequently, both learned counsels jointly stated that the appeal had become infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal has become infructuous in light of the settlement under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its learned counsel, submitted that the matter has been settled under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and produced Form-5 as proof. Therefore, the appeal has become infructuous. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, jointly agreed with the assessee's submission that the settlement under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, has rendered the appeal infructuous. No specific arguments were made by the revenue on the merits of the original dispute.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O-41

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

ITA/1/2020

EIH LTD VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1) KOL

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date : 1st July, 2024

Appearance: Ms. Akshara Shukla, Adv. Mr. Aritra Nag, Adv. … for the appellant.

Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. … for the respondent.

Heard Ms. Akshara Shukla, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Smita Das De, learned senior standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal relates to assessment year 2013-14. 3. Both the learned Counsel for the parties jointly state that the appellant has settled the matter under ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020’ and in support of the contention, they jointly produced Photostat copy of Form-5 dated 04.03.2021 issued by the designated authority (Samar Bhadra, PCIT, Kolkata-1) both the learned Counsel for the

2 parties jointly state that under the circumstances aforementioned this appeal has become infructuous. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of. 5. Copy of Form-5 under ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020’ is produced by learned Counsel for the parties is kept on record.

(SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.)

(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →