VINEET KUMAR BABBAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4190/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2021AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the dispute is not fully settled under the scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The grounds of appeal related to the validity of penalty proceedings and additions made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

Hearing: 12.10.2021Pronounced: 13.10.2021

Date of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 Hearing conducted via Webex ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, wherein the correctness of the order dated 02.05.2017 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year is assailed on various grounds:

1.

“That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO while not appreciating the factual and legal submissions made by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order, particularly when the assessee had specifically pointed out that at the time of initiating the penalty proceedings, the “charge” was not specified by the Ld. AO.

ITA.No.4190/Del./2017 Vineet Kumar Babbar

3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order, particularly when it was a settled proposition of law that where “charge” was not specified, penalty order cannot survive. The Ld. CIT(A) has not discussed in the appellate order, the case laws relied upon by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the imposition of penalty on account of addition of Rs. 39,03,819/- made w.r.t. cessation of liabilities u/s 41(1), particularly when it was doubtful as to in which year such liabilities were ceased. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the imposition of penalty on account of addition of Rs. 3,10,000/- made w.r.t. cash deposits, particularly when the explanation regarding source of such cash, as given by the assessee, could not be disproved by the Ld. AO.”

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR relying upon the application filed by e-mail submits that the assessee seeks to withdraw the present appeal as the dispute has been settled in Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and necessary taxes etc. have been paid. Ld. CIT DR Shri Nazmi on perusing the same submitted that he has no objection to the withdrawal of the assessee’s appeal in the circumstances. Accordingly, the adjournment application moved by the Ld. Sr. DR was withdrawn orally.

3.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the submissions in the light of the facts on record the appeal of the assessee, we direct may be treated as withdrawn. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

However, before parting by way of abundant caution, we deem it appropriate to observe that in case it is found by the assessee that the dispute under the appeal is not fully settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme then the assessee will be at liberty to approach the ITAT with a prayer for restoration of this appeal in accordance with law.

ITA.No.4190/Del./2017 Vineet Kumar Babbar

5.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →