RAHUL KUMAR GOYAL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3547/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 March 2021AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10, challenging additions made by the AO and the denial of agricultural income. During the hearing, it was informed that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 24.03.2017 for Assessment Year 2009-10. Grounds taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under:

1. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer by confirming the addition of Rs. 3,62,330/- as against returned income of Rs. 116720 and agricultural income of Rs. 150000 declared by the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO for the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 and not disposing the same in the light of other relief allowed.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 40,680 on account of negative cash on 12.09.2008 on account of not accepting the opening cash in hand of Rs. 50,000.

4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 171650 on account of purchase of land on 3.10.2008.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the agricultural income of Rs. Page 1 of 3

ITA No:-3547/Del/2017

150000 declared by the appellant and assessed by the AO as income from other sources. 6. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case.”

(B) At the time of hearing, we took notice of letter dated 20.03.2021 filed by Sri Anil Jain, Advocate. In this letter it has been intimated from the assessee’s side that the appellant had already opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) and as such the appeal filed is withdrawn. In view of this, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative)[“Ld. CIT. (DR)”, for short] submitted before us that this appeal may be treated as withdrawn and may be dismissed on account of the aforesaid VSVS. After due consideration and in view of the foregoing; we treat this appeal as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(B.1) Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reason the disputes under this appeal before us are not settled under the aforesaidVSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of this appeal, in accordance with law.

(C) In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

This order was already pronounced on 24thMarch, 2021 in Open Court, in the absence of any representative from assessee’s side, but in the presence of CIT (DR); after conclusion of the hearing.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →