NAVAIR INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3444/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2014-15. The assessee subsequently requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5(1) of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

Hearing: 28.05.2021Pronounced: 28.05.2021

ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, VP :

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, dated 25.01.2019.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of virtual hearing.

The learned counsel for the assessee, vide its letter dated 06.03.2021, received

ITA-3444/Del/2018 2 by hand, has requested for withdrawal of the appeal filed by him and stated that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment years 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 Senior 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In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.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 announced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 28th May, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →