What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue representative agreed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. Subsequently, the assessee filed a letter stating that they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the tax dispute for the assessment year under consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Mr. Sandeep Ambaji Nijapkar vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH & SHRI KULDIP SINGHShri Sandeep Ambaji Nijapkar

For Appellant: Ms. Jagruthi Doshi

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Hearing: 05/05/2022Pronounced: 05/05/2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

This appeal in A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-48/IT-192/AC-21(3)/2018-19 dated 31/05/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 22/12/2016 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

We find that the assessee filed a letter dated 17th February 2022 2. mentioning that he had preferred an application under direct tax “Vivad Se Viswas Scheme 2020” to settle this tax dispute for the year under consideration and had obtained Form-5 from the designated authority thereon, copy of which was enclosed alongwith this letter. Ld. DR also agreed that the Form -5 has been received.

In view of this, we hereby dismiss the appeal pending before us.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in open Court on 05/05/2022

MR. SANDEEP AMBAJI NIJAPKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments