KUSH PLASTICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 14(4), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4190/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 March 2021AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested to withdraw their appeal for the assessment year 2013-14. This was due to opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's appeal could be withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 K. NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 12.03.2021Pronounced: 12.03.2021

ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, VP :

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-5, New Delhi, dated 28.02.2019.

2.

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

The learned counsel for the assessee, vide its letter dated 03.03.2021 received by email, has requested for withdrawal of the appeal filed by him and stated

2 ITA-4190/Del/2019 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In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.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 12th March, 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 →