SUMAN GARG,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-38(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9745/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 August 2021AY 2014-152 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. During the virtual hearing, no one appeared for the assessee. The assessee had requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, due to opting for the Vishwas Scheme, should be granted.

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, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

Hearing: 04.08.2021Pronounced: 04.08.2021

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.10.2019 of the learned CIT(A)-13, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee during the course of Virtual Hearing before us. The assessee, vide its letter dated 20.07.2021, 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, I 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In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.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 04.08.2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →