DINESH VERMA,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-I, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2255/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2021AY 2015-162 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 assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16. During the hearing, no one appeared for the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 29.09.2021Pronounced: 29.09.2021

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.02.2019 of the learned CIT(A), Faridabad, relating to Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee during the course of Virtual Hearing before us. The assessee, vide its letter dated 26.08.2021, has requested for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee stating that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year 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 Sr. DR has no objection.

4.

In view of the above, we accept the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Above decision was pronounced in the open court on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 29.09.2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →