Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was proposed to be withdrawn as the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to this request.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
Sections Cited
68, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 24.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-51 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 04.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2009-10.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Reopening is Bad in Law. 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening in the facts and circumstances of the case.
A.Y. 2009-10 Arenja Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening without appreciating that reopening is beyond four years and it tantamounts to change of opinion and hence reopening is bad in law. 3) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening without appreciating and there is no recording of any failure on the part of Assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts and hence reopening is bad in law. 4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening without appreciating and reopening is done by AO on borrowed satisfaction without any independent Application of Mind and on also on the basis of statement of third party and hence reopening is bad in law. 5) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening without appreciating and that A.O. proceeded with reassessment without disposing objections to reopening and hence, reopening is bad in law. Violation of principles of natural justice 6) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer making addition u/s 68 of Rs 18,00,000/- being share application money received from Riddhi Siddhi Multitrade Pvt Ltd without appreciating that Assessee was not furnished documents/information received from Investigation wing and statement of third party and no cross-examination of third party was provided to the Assessee and thus the reassessment order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence addition of Rs 18,00,000/- may be deleted. On merits, addition u/s 68 of Rs 18,00,000/- is bad in law. 7) The Ld Assessing Officer erred in making addition u/s 68 of Rs 18,00,000/- being share application money received from Riddhi Siddhi Multitrade Pvt Ltd without appreciating that Assessee has discharged it's burden u/s 68 with respect to share application money and entire addition is sustained only on the basis of statement of third party who has retracted the stamen and is also not allowed cross-examination by Assessee and the details submitted by the Assessee are not found false and hence the addition u/s 68 of Rs 18,00,000/- may be deleted.”
At the outset, Ld. AR informed that since the assessee has opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS, 2024), the appeal is proposed to be withdrawn. Ld. DR has not objected to the request of the Ld. AR.
A.Y. 2009-10 Arenja Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4. In view of the assessee’s application, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025.