RENU GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 682/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 November 2021AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee's authorized representative requested the withdrawal of the appeal. This was due to the assessee opting to settle tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA

Hearing: 15.11.2021Pronounced: 15.11.2021

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 27.12.2018 of Learned CIT(A)-13, New Delhi.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the Assessee before me at the time of virtual hearing. However, the assessee’s A.R. vide his letter dated 29.9.2021 has requested for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee and stated that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment years under consideration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A certificate to this effect under Section 5(1) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has also been filed.

3.

Learned Senior DR has no objection.

4.

In view of the above, I accept the request of the assessee’s AR for withdrawal of the aforesaid appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Above decision was announced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 15th November, 2021.

More judgments on Section 5(1)

All 1,811 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →