DEV DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO DELHI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6374/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 February 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Ld. DR had no objection. Accordingly, the Tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the VSV scheme application does not materialize.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against penalty orders confirmed by the CIT(A). The penalties were levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for evaded income on concealed profits. The assessee opted to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn in light of the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH

Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 05.02.2025Pronounced: 07.02.2025

O R D E R PER BENCH: These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070434820(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070434941(1) dated 18.11.2024 passed against the penalty orders by Income Tax Officer, NFAC, and 6375/MUM/2024 Dev Diamonds., AYs 2011-12 & 2014-15 Delhi, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 16.02.2022 and 01.03.2022 for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2014-15 respectively.

2.

Grounds taken by the assessee in both the appeals are reproduced as under:

1) That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty Us. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) on income tax evaded on the concealed profit.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is levied on the assessee vide order dated 16.02.2022. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 03.03.2022 against the aforesaid penalty order, who confirmed the same. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Assessee has placed on record a written submission dated 24.01.2025, wherein it has opted to resolve the dispute in these appeals under ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024’ (VSV, 2024 scheme).

5.

Ld. DR also does not have any objection if the assessee is availing the VSVS scheme and the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Considering the facts on record, we find it appropriate to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, pursuant to the option availed by assessee for resolving the dispute in these appeals under VSV, 2024. Accordingly, appeals of the assessee are dismissed with a liberty to restore / revive the appeals, in

6.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →