RAM AVTAR SINGHAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD59(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4791/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 April 2021AY 2003-042 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05. The assessee subsequently requested withdrawal of these appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme should be accepted.

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 ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 30.04.2021Pronounced: 30.04.2021

ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, VP :

These appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-37, New Delhi, dated 21.06.2017.

2.

The learned counsel for the assessee, vide its letter, received through email, dated 23.04.2021, has requested for withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessee 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 in all the appeals.

3.

Learned Senior DR has no objection.

4.

In view of the above, we accept the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the appeals.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.

Above decision was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of both the sides on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 30th April, 2021.

More judgments on Section 5(1)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →