PEU DEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-71(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 738/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2021AY 2014-152 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 had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee subsequently filed an application to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can withdraw their appeal before the ITAT due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

Hearing: 29.09.2021Pronounced: 29.09.2021

Peu Dey DCIT vs. A-4, Mangal Apartment Circle – 71(1) Chella Sports Complex New Delhi New Delhi-110096 PAN AGVPD 6908 M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-21, New Delhi, relating to the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an application has been filed by the assessee

2 ITA.No.738/Del./2020 Peu Dey requesting to allow the assessee to withdraw the appeal on the ground that assessee has opted for VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, 2020 and has filed Form No.3 issued by the Department.

3.

In view of the above and in the absence of any objection from the side of the Ld. D.R, the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e., on 29.09.2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →