BHARAT HEIGHTS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4610/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested withdrawal of their appeal before the ITAT. This was due to opting for settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. A certificate under the scheme was also provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal can be withdrawn due to opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5(1)

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

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-2, New Delhi, dated 30.03.2019.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of Virtual hearing before us. The learned counsel for the assessee, vide his letter dated 11.05.2021 received through email, has requested for withdrawal of the appeal and stated 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 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In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.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

More judgments on Section 5(1)

All 1,811 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →