ITO, WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ALMAK FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5215/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 February 2021AY 2013-144 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the Revenue and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made under Section 68. The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for settlement of the dispute.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The validity of the notice issued by the AO and the deletion of additions under Section 68 were also grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 127,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 02.05.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Grounds taken in this appeal of Revenue are as under:

“1.The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that at the time of issue of notice u/s 143(2) by ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur, jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was with ITO, Ward-2(2), Delhi and therefore notice issued by ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur was without jurisdiction and therefore invalid, ignoring the fact that this case was being assessed by ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur till 16.02.2015 before being transferred to ITO, Ward-2(2), Delhi u/s 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Page 1 of 4 ITA No.-5215/Del/2017. Almak Finance Pvt. Ltd.

2.

The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in this case notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur on 04.09.2014 whereas order u/s 127 transferring jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur to ITO, Ward-2(2), Delhi was passed on 16.02.2015 as such at the time of issue of notice u/s 143(2), jurisdiction over the case was with ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,90,39,000/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the AO to justify the addition.

4.

On the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.7,80,780/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of commission paid for earning accommodation entry without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the AO to justify the addition.

5.

The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”

(B) At the time of hearing, at the outset, the Ld. Counsel the Assessee informed us that the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) for the settlement of subject matter of the disputes in this appeal. He drew our attention to Email dated February 9th, 2021 sent from assessee’s side in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) giving intimation of the same. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted before us that this appeal may be dismissed on account of the aforesaid VSVS. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) [“Ld. CIT(DR)”, for short] did not express any objection to this. After due consideration, and in view of the foregoing; we are of the opinion that this appeal has become infructuous on account of aforesaid VSVS, and that this appeal may be treated as ITA No.-5215/Del/2017. Almak Finance Pvt. Ltd. withdrawn by Revenue on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, the appeal having become infructuous, is treated as withdrawn and, is hereby dismissed.

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

(B.2) With these directions, the aforesaid appeal of Revenue is dismissed, being treated as withdrawn.

(C) For statistical purposes, this appeal is dismissed.

This order was already pronounced on 10th February, 2021 in Open Court, in the presence of Representatives of both sides; after conclusion of the hearing.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →