PROBIR ROY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - XVII

PDF · subscribers
ITA/43/2012HC CalcuttaWBCHCO001327201216 June 2023Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, upon being informed by the appellant's counsel that the disputes have been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and this position being confirmed by the respondent's counsel, accepted the submission. The Court noted that the appellant, on instructions, was not desirous of prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as 'not pressed'. The Court also directed that the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant be returned to the petitioner within 10 days of the communication of the order. The interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original appeal was decided.

What were the facts?

This matter pertains to an appeal (ITA 43 of 2012) filed before the High Court at Calcutta, Original Side, by Probir Roy (the appellant/applicant) against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata – XVII (the respondent). The appeal was admitted in 2012. The present proceedings concern an interlocutory application (IA No. GA/2/2023) filed in 2023. The core of the current proceeding is that the disputes between the appellant and the respondent have been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appellant, through their counsel, stated that they no longer wish to pursue the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal (ITA 43 of 2012) should be dismissed as not pressed, given the settlement of disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Assessee's Contention: The appellant's counsel, Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy, submitted that the disputes have been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and therefore, the appellant is not desirous of prosecuting the appeal. Revenue's Contention: Mr. Prithu Dudheria, counsel for the respondent, confirmed the settlement of disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not raise any objection to the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA No. GA/2/2023 In ITA 43 of 2012 PROBIR ROY -VS- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – XVII BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY Date : 16th JUNE, 2023. Appearance: Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy, Adv. Mr. Vishwarup Acharyya, Adv. …for the appellant/applicant. Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. ..for the respondent. The Court : Mr Pijush Kanti Roy, learned advocate for the appellant- petitioner submits that the disputes between the parties have been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for settlement under Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act III of 2020) and the Rules framed thereunder. Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned advocate for the respondent, confirmed this position. In that view of the matter, Mr. Roy submits on instructions that his client is not desirous of prosecuting this appeal (ITA 43 of 2012). Accordingly, the same is dismissed as ‘not pressed’. The bank guarantee furnished by the appellant with the respondent authority pursuant to the order dated 28.3.2012 of a division bench of this court may be returned to the petitioner within 10 (ten) days of communication of this order. This application ( IA No.GA/2/2023) is, accordingly, disposed of. (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.) cs.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →